"Hostage" "released" from her captives...

[Devastatin Dave]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/30/AR2006033000225.html
Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure she was a hostage...:juggle2:

[Scurvy]

erm..why not?

EDIT: you were being sarcastic right?

[Fragony]

"I was treated very well. That's important for people to know," she said in an interview with an Arabic-speaking questioner at the headquarters of the Iraqi Islamic Party. "They never hit me, they never even threatened to hit me. I'm just happy to be free, and I want to be with my family."

I am sure her 'scope' is now a lot broader.

[Devastatin Dave]

Let's just say this was a wonderfully staged event. She went from crying and begging for her life and now saying that the kidnapers were as gentle as new born lambs. This is total and complete BS. This is a setup and the media is falling all over itself reporting this scam. Congrats to the "freedom fighter" on this great PR move that the media is more than happy to assist in this propoganda.

[Scurvy]

hmm, maybe your being a bit cynical (although i admit it could well be a set up)

i;d certainly rather have freedom fighters trying to gain good PR over killing people :skull:

[Ser Clegane]

I think you make too many assumptions and draw conclusions to quickly here, Dave.

AFAIK her interpreter had been killed when she was kidnapped. Also, even if she hasn't been hit or tortured and generally been treated wee, she had certainly still enough reason to be afraid and fear for her life.

[Devastatin Dave]

hmm, maybe your being a bit cynical (although i admit it could well be a set up)

i;d certainly rather have freedom fighters trying to gain good PR over killing people :skull:
I agree, but calling these people freedom fighters is about the same as calling the Sudan an African paradise.

[Devastatin Dave]

I think you make too many assumptions and draw conclusions to quickly here, Dave.


Just fishy that's all. But of course I come to conclusions and make too many assumptions compared to all the rational and well thought out opinions of others on this board right?:juggle2:
Nope its just me....:wall:

[Scurvy]

I agree, but calling these people freedom fighters is about the same as calling the Sudan an African paradise.

I think they can count as freedom fighters, they are fighting to free their country of foreign armies and to release their own friends who are in US/other's captivity, whether we agree they should have freedom is irrelevant, they caertainly belive they are freedom fighters....

i think sudan could count as a tax haven :idea2:

[Ser Clegane]

Just fishy that's all. But of course I come to conclusions and make too many assumptions compared to all the rational and well thought out opinions of others on this board right?:juggle2:
Nope its just me....:wall:

Well ... you accuse her of staging the whole thing based on what? Only based on the fact that she first begged for her life and later said that she wasn't mistreated?
Is it impossible to fear for your life when you are not physically mistreated?

What exactly is "fishy" here?

Are you suggesting that she has been involved in a "staged" kidnapping that resulted in the death of her interpreter?

[Fragony]

What exactly is "fishy" here?


How about that headscarf she wears, combined with the praise for the 'freedom fighters'.

[Scurvy]

How about that headscarf she wears, combined with the praise for the 'freedom fighters'.

it is possible to be muslim and not a freedom fighter...in fact almost all muslims are against terrorist hostage takings.... a very rash assumption to make....especially as the interpreter was killed...

[Fragony]

it is possible to be muslim and not a freedom fighter...in fact almost all muslims are against terrorist hostage takings....

But of course.

[Ser Clegane]

How about that headscarf she wears, combined with the praise for the 'freedom fighters'.

The headscarf is seen quite often among Western woman who try to work among muslims in a muslim country
As for the "praise of freedom fighters" - is that something that is stated in the video? I have to admit that I did not watch the video (a bit inappropriate here at work ~;)) and only read the article, where the term "freedom fighter" is not used at all (also, if she used the term in the video, it would not be necessarily unusual after spending almost three months with the kidnappers - it is a quite common phenomenon that hostages develop sympathies for the "cause" of their kidnappers, especially if they are not mistreated)

But I forgot, if you are a "raghead" ... oops ... I mean: if you are wearing a headscarf, you have to live with being considered a terrorist or terrorist sympathizer

[solypsist]

dave, are you saying you would have preferred if she were killed? that it would have been more "authentic" if she had been beheaded on tv? i'm curious as to why you're so disappointed that she is alive and safe.

[Scurvy]

But I forgot, if you are a "raghead" ... oops ... I mean: if you are wearing a headscarf, you have to live with being considered a terrorist or terrorist sympathizer

its a horrible assumption, but sadly a common one :shame:

in terms of her sympthizing with the hostage takers, i think it is very possible (especially as she seems to have been very well treated) and would therefore praise the terrorists for their success, would that be a concious or subconcious phycological {spelt wrong i think} development for her?

[Vladimir]

dave, are you saying you would have preferred if she were killed? that it would have been more "authentic" if she had been beheaded on tv? i'm curious as to why you're so disappointed that she is alive and safe.

Interesting way of putting it. I suppose if she had her head cut off with a pocket knife like some others it would provide a rather grim proof. In this case I gladly prefer doubt to verification

[Kanamori]

If the US media is out only to make Bush look bad, and by logical extension America (*cough* *cough*), then they are doing an awful job. For starters, the American media doesn't even show Bush in many, or any, of his stupidest, most incompotent moments, and there are many of them. He's got to be the worst orator we've had as a President for years. I'm curious, is the media just not supposed to report what she says? To me, that sounds like bad reporting, not the other way around. If people are too stupid to make heads or tails of something that is reported w/o it being told to them, we're doomed anyway. I sincerely doubt anyone but the most extreme 'liberals' will take this in any way that is sympathetic towards kidnappers.

[Fragony]

But I forgot, if you are a "raghead" ... oops ... I mean: if you are wearing a headscarf, you have to live with being considered a terrorist or terrorist sympathizer

With a fairly balanced person such as myselve, yes. :laugh4:

It would help if they stopped giving me any reasons to be this way, no reason for me to change my views for now :skull:

[Vladimir]

If the US media is out only to make Bush look bad, and by logical extension America (*cough* *cough*), then they are doing an awful job. For starters, the American media doesn't even show Bush in many, or any, of his stupidest, most incompotent moments, and there are many of them. He's got to be the worst orator we've had as a President for years. I'm curious, is the media just not supposed to report what she says? To me, that sounds like bad reporting, not the other way around. If people are too stupid to make heads or tails of something that is reported w/o it being told to them, we're doomed anyway. I sincerely doubt anyone but the most extreme 'liberals' will take this in any way that is sympathetic towards kidnappers.

The media is less into "let's get Bush" and more into "he's not our type". This biases old school media coverage largely because journalists and conservatives (a term used very loosely when describing this President) don't share the same ideology. There's plenty of hate America types in media and education, but that's not what they as whole have on their agenda. Everyone has a bias and those that say they don't are lying or ignorant.

[InsaneApache]

Stockholm syndrome?

[Kanamori]

The media is less into "let's get Bush" and more into "he's not our type". This biases old school media coverage largely because journalists and conservatives (a term used very loosely when describing this President) don't share the same ideology. There's plenty of hate America types in media and education, but that's not what they as whole have on their agenda. Everyone has a bias and those that say they don't are lying or ignorant.

That's the thing, the US media doesn't grill any of our politicians, they ask them simple questions that will only ocassionally be leading to some conclusion other than the answer the politician chooses to give. I like how the media here helps to keep the politicians on their feet and uncomfortable, although it seems more suited to the Parliamentary system.

[mystic brew]

http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article353612.ece

[yesdachi]

That's the thing, the US media doesn't grill any of our politicians, they ask them simple questions that will only ocassionally be leading to some conclusion other than the answer the politician chooses to give. I like how the media here helps to keep the politicians on their feet and uncomfortable, although it seems more suited to the Parliamentary system.
The mainstream media in the US is definitely a bunch of softball throwers to both sides of the political arena when it comes to interviews but the issue that I have is that they give soooo much attention to the talking heads on the left without really asking them to support or explain their comments. On the other hand George W, who always has a camera in front of him rarely takes the initiative to defend his actions or clarify his statements. Sadly it seems that many of our politicians cant hit or throw anything but softballs. I do wish we had some stronger leaders who could answer a tough question without throwing up a straw man or sensational remark to hide their lack of substance.

As to the hostage situation, it doesn’t make any sense at all. She was held for months and then just released without receiving any of their ransom demands, I don’t get it and it does smell fishy but I don’t know to what benefit. Either there was some motivation that I don’t know about or the kidnappers were ill prepared fools. Probably both.

[LeftEyeNine]

First of all I should start making myself clear about I'm not lawyer to anyone kidnapping, wrapping bombs around themselves and dive into a metro station. I'll not reply anything whatever one calls me that way.

SerClegane has very accurate points about the kidnapping. Somebody kidnaps you, naturally, using brutal force, drags you into somewhere and you find yourself all tied when you open your eyes. This would even scare the hell out of the toughest patron here, her gender added, it's quite logical that she was begging and crying for her release.

However, please correct me if any controversial incident happened since it's hard to follow due to happening so many, those terrorists try not to harm the women. Hate it or not, that's taking roots from their religious beliefs -forget about what they are currently doing, they are righteous from their own point of view- and it's highly unlikely that they'll ever hurt some woman hostage.

Eventually it's a happy ending after all, the journalist is returned and safe without any injuries or anything else. I find it highly prejudicious and dogmatic to whine about even after such positive results.

[Ianofsmeg16]

Stockholm syndrome?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4033433299575277265&q=Stockholm+Syndrome&pl=true :2thumbsup: :laugh4:

Seriously though, we should just be thankful that the hostage came out unharmed, leave it for about a month and then throw the suspition punch

[Goofball]

Normally I would be the first one to attack Dave for his opinions on this (or just about any) matter.~;) But I saw this woman being interviewed on TV first thing this morning, and quite frankly it disgusted me. She spoke so kindly of these "freedom fighters" who kidnapped her (the same murdering bastards who killed her interpreter, whom she made no mention of in the interview I watched) that I was expecting her to offer to drop to her knees and fellate any of them who wanted it.

While I don't agree with everything Dave is saying, I will acknowledge that media coverage of this event, combined with the attitude that Carroll is displaying, is definitely slanted in favor of the kidnappers.

And yes, there is definitely a "fishy" feeling about the whole thing.

[Major Robert Dump]

Book Deal.

I think I want to go to Iraq and get myself "kidnapped", holing up in a hotel with some guns, a camera and some beer for a few weeks, and with some fancy editing and quick costume changes I could actually play myself and all the terrorists, I'd be like the Eddie Murphy of Iraq

[econ21]

...it's highly unlikely that they'll ever hurt some woman hostage.


I think you are adopting too charitable an opinion of kidnappers in Iraq. Her sex did not stop kidnappers killing Margaret Hassan. :shame:

BTW: weird thread - there's nothing in that Washington Post article that seems out of place to me.

[Major Robert Dump]

I think they let her live because shes such a babe

http://www.m90.org/index.php?id=13274

[Devastatin Dave]

dave, are you saying you would have preferred if she were killed? that it would have been more "authentic" if she had been beheaded on tv? i'm curious as to why you're so disappointed that she is alive and safe.
Wow, who's making assumptions now. No I didn't want her dead I was just pointing out how this seems a little too curious. I love how 99% of the posts here are conjecture and assumptions but I post this and everyone jumps on me. I love it!!!:laugh4:

[Spetulhu]

I love how 99% of the posts here are conjecture and assumptions but I post this and everyone jumps on me. I love it!!!:laugh4:

But of course. Why else would you have started the thread like you did? :inquisitive:

[Devastatin Dave]

Normally I would be the first one to attack Dave for his opinions on this (or just about any) matter.~;) But I saw this woman being interviewed on TV first thing this morning, and quite frankly it disgusted me. She spoke so kindly of these "freedom fighters" who kidnapped her (the same murdering bastards who killed her interpreter, whom she made no mention of in the interview I watched) that I was expecting her to offer to drop to her knees and fellate any of them who wanted it.

While I don't agree with everything Dave is saying, I will acknowledge that media coverage of this event, combined with the attitude that Carroll is displaying, is definitely slanted in favor of the kidnappers.

And yes, there is definitely a "fishy" feeling about the whole thing.

Thanks Goofy, I know it took a lot for you to have some agreement with me!!!
To the others that are in disagreement with me, I thought it was a good thing for me to not take things at face value. I thought that I was being "progressive" in my thought pattern. Would it help if I wore a Che shirt while posting?:2thumbsup:

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

fishier than a lady's crotch with health issues.

[Devastatin Dave]

But of course. Why else would you have started the thread like you did? :inquisitive:
Why else? Because I'm a naughty little boy that needs a good healthy spanking. :knuddel:

[yesdachi]

I think they let her live because shes such a babe

http://www.m90.org/index.php?id=13274
Video like this just makes me think its such a bassackward culture.:dizzy2:

[Scurvy]

Video like this just makes me think its such a bassackward culture.:dizzy2:

it has to start somewhere ~:)

[Devastatin Dave]

I think we are being Tawana Brawley'd...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tawana_Brawley

If this turns out to be faked I wonder if the news will be able to report it with all the egg on their face.

[Al Khalifah]

Some people "deserve" to be "kidnapped".

[LeftEyeNine]

I think you are adopting too charitable an opinion of kidnappers in Iraq. Her sex did not stop kidnappers killing Margaret Hassan. :shame:

BTW: weird thread - there's nothing in that Washington Post article that seems out of place to me.

Um, I did not know that. :embarassed:

[Watchman]

The assorted folks with guns in Iraq never struck me as a particularly monolithic or homogenous bunch. It is, however, an interesting detail that all the victims in the recent spate of apparently sectarian violence there - you know, folks tortured, killed, and left to be found in a van or minibus - have AFAIK been men, so it's not actually that far-fetched an idea that many of the insurrectionists would consider women to a greater or lesser degree "off-limits" as targets.

[Don Corleone]

Didn't Simon just provide a pretty well-known example that in fact women are not 'off-limits'.

[Watchman]

...as opposed to just how many cases of men being killed without second thought ?

Plus I urge you to pay attention to the conditional "many of".

[Quietus]

They killed the Margaret Hassan lady that already Simon mentioned. Not sure what is the difference between the two in terms of religion or position (although the dead was a lot older).

[Scurvy]

were they not both taken hostage by different extremist groups (ie. one group would be extremist enough to kill, and the other not?)

[Vladimir]

...as opposed to just how many cases of men being killed without second thought ?

Plus I urge you to pay attention to the conditional "many of".

Do you see many female soldiers in the Iraqi army? Or working at power plants or other areas these people target? I suppose all the women killed in bombing attacks are killed with a second thought? Why would they intentionally target women? They kill whoever they think they have to in order to further their agenda. Take a look at the considerable efforts of the coalition forces not to harm noncombatants and compare them against the "freedom fighters". If intentionally targeting women and children would help them achieve their goals they would do it. When God's on your side, what does it matter? Besides, if they were truly pious people they would go to paradise any way.

You don't see a lot of female casualties because it's not a liberal culture. If it was, you would see the violence against women by Islamists that you see in Europe.

Something interesting too: Did anybody hear the quote of her saying that her captors had really nice furniture? I suppose the fact that they killed her translator was not important because they had maple furniture. :dizzy2:

[Don Corleone]

This one definitely smells fishy. The insurgents kill her translator and she's falling over herself to talk about what a swell bunch of fellahs they were and don't they know how to keep the place furnished....? :dizzy2:

What a joke.

[Ser Clegane]

I think I am still not quite sure what some people here mean by "fishy".

Do you think that this kidnapping was staged, i.e. Jill Carroll is not a victim but was collaborating with terrorists (or insurgents, wehatever is more to your liking)?

Or do you think that she is an actual kidnapping victim, albeit an idiotic one that talks nonsense?

As a matter of fact, the German hostage that was taken and then later released shortly before Christmas (Susanne Osthoff) also gave some very weird interviews after she was released (she was also veiled, BTW) and generally seems to be a somewhat strange personality, however, nobody (except for some terrible yellow press papers) had serious doubts that the kidnapping was for real.
Actually the strange interviews were partly attributed to the stress of being held a hostage for quite a while.
Personally I have some difficulties blaming somebody who has been held hostage for almost 3 months - facing the very real possibility of being killed - for talking nonsense in interviews that were given very shortly after the release.

P.S.: Apparently all those who believe that this is staged also conveniently ignored InsaneApache's reference to the Stockholm Syndrome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome)

Is there a possibility that this has been staged? Certainly might be the case - but providing some actual evidence before making such accusations would be kind of nice...

[Fragony]

Or do you think that she is an actual kidnapping victim, albeit an idiotic one that talks nonsense?


I think she's an actual kidnapping victim with an agenda.

[Ser Clegane]

I think she's an actual kidnapping victim with an agenda.

I guess most people who go to Iraq without actually having to have some kind of "agenda".
If by "agenda" you mean that she is opposing the presence of US military in Iraq - the same was apparently true for numerous hostages, including the ones that have recently been freed.

Or what do you mean by "agenda"?

[Devastatin Dave]

I P.S.: Apparently all the "witch-burners" Is there a possibility that this has been staged? Certainly might be the case

I was bringing up the "possibility" as YOU stated and you call me and others "witch burners".
Thanks.:furious3:

[Ser Clegane]

I was bringing up the "possibility" as YOU stated and you call me and others "witch burners".
Thanks.:furious3:

Some quotes:


Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure she was a hostage

...

this was a wonderfully staged event

...

This is a setup

...

I think we are being Tawana Brawley'd...


Looks like you made up your mind about the situation.

[Fragony]

Or what do you mean by "agenda"?

I think she converted, exhibit A being on her head. I agree with Don Corleone,

'This one definitely smells fishy. The insurgents kill her translator and she's falling over herself to talk about what a swell bunch of fellahs they were and don't they know how to keep the place furnished....?'

Propaganda.

[Devastatin Dave]

Well Ser, how about posting something of substance than calling people names. You would think a mod would know better.:laugh4:

[Ser Clegane]

Well Ser, how about posting something of substance

Like the reference to the Stockholm Syndrome or the references to other hostage case, in which the victim was wearing a headscarf and giving silly/idiotic interviews?

[Ser Clegane]

OK - I retract the "witch-burner" comment and apologize if I was out of bounds

:bow:


But she was wearing the headscarf before she was kidnapped.

Was she wearing the headscarf only in muslim countries, e.g. Iraq (which is not very unusual for Western women working there) or was she also wearing it in the US?

[Devastatin Dave]

Like the reference to the Stockholm Syndrome or the references to other hostage case, in which the victim was wearing a headscarf and giving silly/idiotic interviews?
That would be nice and less name calling. Now you've got the idea, I hope you start behaving, I'd hate to have my constructive thread locked because of someone's silly, childish behaviour...

Has anyone read her columns? They don't seem to much like your usual leftist propoganda and seem to be balanced. The possiblity of Stockholm is there. But she was wearing the headscarf before she was kidnapped. Its fishy and I'm sure if it is a sham, it will be discovered. I just doubt it would be reportrf since this story fits the medias agenda.

[Ser Clegane]

OK - I retract the "witch-burner" comment and apologize if I was out of bounds

:bow:



Was she wearing the headscarf only in muslim countries, e.g. Iraq (which is not very unusual for Western women working there) or was she also wearing it in the US?

Uhm ... why did my reply to Dave's post, appear before Dave's post???

[Scurvy]

I think she converted, exhibit A being on her head. I agree with Don Corleone,

'This one definitely smells fishy. The insurgents kill her translator and she's falling over herself to talk about what a swell bunch of fellahs they were and don't they know how to keep the place furnished...?'

Propaganda.

is it not possible that she is an ordinary hostage who was treated well? i dont find it that hard to believe, (although im anything but cynical ~:confused:)

stockholm syndrome or sowething else along those lines (i know nothing about it, so il take your word that its possible)


EDIT: just because she was muslim before she was kidnapped changes nothing, apart from that she may have been treated slighly better than would otherwise be the case... (so actually not nothing, one thing :2thumbsup: )

[yesdachi]

One thing I find fishy is that she was released without receiving any of their demands or any compensation at all. Not completely uncommon but combined with the other odd circumstances of the whole ordeal… I find it fishy, not bogus or set-up, just fishy.:bow:

[Devastatin Dave]

Uhm ... why did my reply to Dave's post, appear before Dave's post???
Because I'm not really a witch burner, I'm an actual witch!!! Just wait, I've cast a spell that will bring as plague of frogs into the backroom!!!
I'm not sure if she was wearing the head scarf in the states. But I've seen pictures of her in the garb before the kidnapping. When its said that she had an agenda, I guess we can safely say that everyone has an agenda. I just have a hunch that the whole story is not being told. I also have a feeling that there was possibly a ransom paid. I'm just thinking out loud.

[Ser Clegane]

I also have a feeling that there was possibly a ransom paid. I'm just thinking out loud.

I tend to agree with - I have a hard time believing that they let her go just because they were really nice and decent kidnappers.
I just wonder who might have paid the ransom in this case. I doubt that the US government would deviate from their "no negotiations with hostage takers" position

[Scurvy]

it is slightly unusual, but i would put this down to...

a. there are many different groups of hostage takers, many of which are more hostile than others

b. she was muslim, must make a difference

c. phycological shock conbined with the good conditions might well of effected her to become less critical of the hostage takers....

EDIT: Dave, a ransom is very possible, (add that as d.)

[Scurvy]

I doubt that the US government would deviate from their "no negotiations with hostage takers" position

they just dont tell you they do :2thumbsup:

maybe relatives, or the company she was working for

[Devastatin Dave]

I don't think she's Muslim, I just think she wore the scarf.

[Fragony]

Uhm ... why did my reply to Dave's post, appear before Dave's post???

The moonbeams are strong this time of the year mia muca :idea2:

[Scurvy]

I don't think she's Muslim, I just think she wore the scarf.

i stand corrected... :tomato2:

[Devastatin Dave]

i stand corrected... :tomato2:
Don't beat yourself up, you might be right, but as far as I know, she's not Muslim. But I could be wrong, she's just in fashion I guess, maybe?

[Reenk Roink]

:no: ... :shame:

This thread sure smells fishy, or is that the **** being talked?

I too saw her interview today on the morning news before school. Apparently it was quite an ordeal for her. She said it was like "falling of a cliff for 3 months" and she was worried when she would "hit the ground."

Yet some people are slamming her a liar and a PR tool just because she made one comment that she was treated nice. Although they ignore the many comments about her wanting to be back with her family, saying "my captors did not treat me badly" is apparently equal to giving them a blowjob. Perhaps these same people would want her to be beheaded or given 1st class Abu Ghraib treatment so they could advance their own PR interests to get the public angry and perhaps pick up that dwindling support for the war...

[master of the puppets]

a misplaced word = flame war :2thumbsup: :skull: :embarassed:

but i really believe she is giving the hostage takers way to many niceties, we know there are multiple qroups of terrorists but few are well funded now and very few have any new supporters, i doubt that it was absolutely her choice but mabey a terrorist organised plot to drum up a little support. if images of "just and kind" terrorists start bouncing about who knows how the world will react... i know how. AW look the terrorists are letting all the hostages go, how nice, hey all the journalists are safe only shiahs are dying now, lookj america they can run themselves, get out now blah blah blah....america exits, country explodes.


the insurgency is weakening and the violent images does'nt help them any more, they need to go back to the whole "rightous" image.

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

Yet some people are slamming her a liar and a PR tool just because she made one comment that she was treated nice.

One comment?

how about these?

Voice in tape: How did the Mujahedeen treat you?

Jill Carroll: They treated me very well. They treated me very well, like a guest. I was given very good food, kept very safe, treated very, very well.

Voice in tape: Did you think the American Army or the CIA would save you in any time?

Carroll: I thought maybe they might. Sometimes I thought that they might come, that they might find me. They might (sic) a way to know where I am and come get me. I did think maybe they might.

Voice: Why didn’t they save you?

Carroll: Well, I think the Mujahedeen are very smart and even with all the technology and all the people the American Army has here, they still are better at knowing how to live and work here and more clever, despite all the technology of the American Army, still more clever and better at being here than the American Army, still better at what they do.

Voice: Does this mean anything?

Carroll: I think it makes it very clear, it makes very clear that the Mujahedeen are the ones who will win in the end in this war, I think it makes very clear that even with thousands of troops and airplanes and tanks and guns that that doesn’t mean anything here on the ground in Iraq as it shows over time, maybe how many months over time or however (sic) months are left in the occupation that it’s pretty clear that the Mujahedeen are the ones that will have the victory left at the end of the day. It shows that no matter no matter what Americans try to say is happening here or try to do with all their weapons, they aren’t going to be able to stay here, they’re not going to be able to stop the Mujahedeen and that’s for sure.

Voice: What will you tell the American people?

Carroll: Well, first of all I want them to be able to understand, I want them to understand the Mujahedeen, truly. There are a lot of lies to come out of the American government, calling the Mujahedeen terrorists and other things and I think it’s important that American people hear from me the Mujahedeen are only trying to defend their country. This is only a jihad to stop an illegal and dangerous and deadly occupation so I think it’s important that people see the Mujahedeen are people that we’ve seen in our entire history resisting an occupation trying to fight a foreign force in their land, it’s their country and they have a right to fight for their own freedom so I want people to understand that it’s not people that like to kill, not people that like violence but people who love their country, people who want to see their country free from an occupation and also I want them to understand that the situation in Iraq in general, how difficult it is here, people don’t have electricity, people don’t have water, children don’t have safe streets to walk in, women and children are always in danger&People are killed left and right on the streets without any reason. People die everyday from the bombings and shootings of the army and all these things. So I think people need to understand in America how difficult life is here for the normal, average Iraqis. That everyday is a matter of survival, life and death for most Iraqis and thousands and thousands and tens of thousands of Iraqis have lost their lives here because of the occupation. I think Americans need to think about that and day to day how difficult life is here, how terrifying it is for most people to live here everyday because of the occupation.

Voice: Do you have a message for Mr. Bush?

Carroll: (Laughs)Yeah, he needs to stop this war. He knows this war is wrong. He knows that it was illegal from the very beginning. He knows that it was built on a mountain of lies and I think he needs to finally admit that to the American people and make the troops go home and he doesn’t care about his own people.He doesn’t care about the people here in Iraq, he needs to wake up and the people of America need to wake up and tell that what he’s done here is wrong and so hopefully this time he can get the message that this war was wrong and the continuing occupation is wrong adn he could change his policies. He’s dangerous for Iraq. He’s dangerous for America. He needs to accept that and admit that to people.

[…]

Voice: What do you feel now that the Mujahedeen are giving you your freedom while there are still women in Abu Ghraib living in very bad (unclear)?

Carroll: Well, I feel guilty honestly. I’ve been here, treated very well, like a guest. I’ve been given good food, never, never hurt while those women are in Abu Ghraib. Terrible things are happening to them with the American soldiers are torturing them and other things I don’t want, I can’t even say, so I feel guilty and I also feels it shows the difference between the Mujahedeen and Americans, the Mujahedeen are merciful and kind that’s why I’m free and alive. The American army they aren’t […not clear…] I feel guilty and I also feel that it just shows that Mujahedeen are good people, fighting an honorable fight, a good fight while the Americans are here as an occupying force treating the people in a very, very bad way so I can’t be happy totally for my freedom, there are people still suffering in prisons and very difficult situations.

[Don Corleone]

Alright, let me quit beating around the bush. I think the whole thing was staged and that she had coordinated the 'adbudction' with her 'kidnappers' prior to the event.

I say that not because she talks about what a great bunch of guys they are, how her kidnapping was the fault of the US (a bunch of liars running an illegal war) and that she feels guilty being out and about with women being mistreated, RIGHT NOW, at Abu Grahib. AFAIK, the 'mistreatment' women in Abu Grahib are being subjected to is being incarcerated at all. There haven't been any proven chareges of mistreatment to the women being held there... and the kidnappers' demands were to release any woman being detained. And with the way the media jumps on anything and everything that makes the US look bad, we would have heard about this LONG before now.

No, my suspicions arise from everything I list in the previous paragraph in light of the fact that her co-worker, a translator was murdered in the process, and she feels free to give these guys a plug as the last true Boy Scouts anyway.

If somebody killed one of my coworkers, even if I didn't like the guy, I don't care if the kidnappers took me to Disneyland, I'd be calling for their heads on a platter. The fact that she never even thinks about the guy tells me that she was quite comfortable with the murder and most likely aware of it prior to it's actual occurrence.

In short, I think the whole thing was staged. I think she worked hand in hand with the people that took her, and when it became clear that the US wasn't going to release all the female insurgents being held, and her name finally started falling out of daily media coverage, they 'let her go', to get the story going all over again.

[Devastatin Dave]

One comment?

how about these?

Voice in tape: How did the Mujahedeen treat you?

Jill Carroll: They treated me very well. They treated me very well, like a guest. I was given very good food, kept very safe, treated very, very well.

Voice in tape: Did you think the American Army or the CIA would save you in any time?

Carroll: I thought maybe they might. Sometimes I thought that they might come, that they might find me. They might (sic) a way to know where I am and come get me. I did think maybe they might.

Voice: Why didn’t they save you?

Carroll: Well, I think the Mujahedeen are very smart and even with all the technology and all the people the American Army has here, they still are better at knowing how to live and work here and more clever, despite all the technology of the American Army, still more clever and better at being here than the American Army, still better at what they do.

Voice: Does this mean anything?

Carroll: I think it makes it very clear, it makes very clear that the Mujahedeen are the ones who will win in the end in this war, I think it makes very clear that even with thousands of troops and airplanes and tanks and guns that that doesn’t mean anything here on the ground in Iraq as it shows over time, maybe how many months over time or however (sic) months are left in the occupation that it’s pretty clear that the Mujahedeen are the ones that will have the victory left at the end of the day. It shows that no matter no matter what Americans try to say is happening here or try to do with all their weapons, they aren’t going to be able to stay here, they’re not going to be able to stop the Mujahedeen and that’s for sure.

Voice: What will you tell the American people?

Carroll: Well, first of all I want them to be able to understand, I want them to understand the Mujahedeen, truly. There are a lot of lies to come out of the American government, calling the Mujahedeen terrorists and other things and I think it’s important that American people hear from me the Mujahedeen are only trying to defend their country. This is only a jihad to stop an illegal and dangerous and deadly occupation so I think it’s important that people see the Mujahedeen are people that we’ve seen in our entire history resisting an occupation trying to fight a foreign force in their land, it’s their country and they have a right to fight for their own freedom so I want people to understand that it’s not people that like to kill, not people that like violence but people who love their country, people who want to see their country free from an occupation and also I want them to understand that the situation in Iraq in general, how difficult it is here, people don’t have electricity, people don’t have water, children don’t have safe streets to walk in, women and children are always in danger&People are killed left and right on the streets without any reason. People die everyday from the bombings and shootings of the army and all these things. So I think people need to understand in America how difficult life is here for the normal, average Iraqis. That everyday is a matter of survival, life and death for most Iraqis and thousands and thousands and tens of thousands of Iraqis have lost their lives here because of the occupation. I think Americans need to think about that and day to day how difficult life is here, how terrifying it is for most people to live here everyday because of the occupation.

Voice: Do you have a message for Mr. Bush?

Carroll: (Laughs)Yeah, he needs to stop this war. He knows this war is wrong. He knows that it was illegal from the very beginning. He knows that it was built on a mountain of lies and I think he needs to finally admit that to the American people and make the troops go home and he doesn’t care about his own people.He doesn’t care about the people here in Iraq, he needs to wake up and the people of America need to wake up and tell that what he’s done here is wrong and so hopefully this time he can get the message that this war was wrong and the continuing occupation is wrong adn he could change his policies. He’s dangerous for Iraq. He’s dangerous for America. He needs to accept that and admit that to people.

[…]

Voice: What do you feel now that the Mujahedeen are giving you your freedom while there are still women in Abu Ghraib living in very bad (unclear)?

Carroll: Well, I feel guilty honestly. I’ve been here, treated very well, like a guest. I’ve been given good food, never, never hurt while those women are in Abu Ghraib. Terrible things are happening to them with the American soldiers are torturing them and other things I don’t want, I can’t even say, so I feel guilty and I also feels it shows the difference between the Mujahedeen and Americans, the Mujahedeen are merciful and kind that’s why I’m free and alive. The American army they aren’t […not clear…] I feel guilty and I also feel that it just shows that Mujahedeen are good people, fighting an honorable fight, a good fight while the Americans are here as an occupying force treating the people in a very, very bad way so I can’t be happy totally for my freedom, there are people still suffering in prisons and very difficult situations.

Wow, what a traitorous little twat!!! She needs Backroom access ASAP!!!:laugh4:

[Tachikaze]

Well, first of all I want them to be able to understand, I want them to understand the Mujahedeen, truly. There are a lot of lies to come out of the American government, calling the Mujahedeen terrorists and other things and I think it’s important that American people hear from me the Mujahedeen are only trying to defend their country. This is only a jihad to stop an illegal and dangerous and deadly occupation so I think it’s important that people see the Mujahedeen are people that we’ve seen in our entire history resisting an occupation trying to fight a foreign force in their land, it’s their country and they have a right to fight for their own freedom so I want people to understand that it’s not people that like to kill, not people that like violence but people who love their country, people who want to see their country free from an occupation and also I want them to understand that the situation in Iraq in general, how difficult it is here, people don’t have electricity, people don’t have water, children don’t have safe streets to walk in, women and children are always in danger&People are killed left and right on the streets without any reason. People die everyday from the bombings and shootings of the army and all these things. So I think people need to understand in America how difficult life is here for the normal, average Iraqis. That everyday is a matter of survival, life and death for most Iraqis and thousands and thousands and tens of thousands of Iraqis have lost their lives here because of the occupation. I think Americans need to think about that and day to day how difficult life is here, how terrifying it is for most people to live here everyday because of the occupation.
Whether or not the kidnapping was staged, this is the message the US public needs to hear.

[Devastatin Dave]

Whether or not the kidnapping was staged, this is the message the US public needs to hear.
LOL, speak of the devil...:laugh4:
After reading her intervue, this chick reminded me of you if you had a vagina and a head scarf. Then you posted. Man that's almost scary!!!:laugh4:

[Scurvy]

Whether or not the kidnapping was staged, this is the message the US public needs to hear.

~:thumb:

[Watchman]

*snip*Watta load of conspirationalist bull built on exceedingly shaky kitchen-psychological assessement. Especially if she wasn't particularly close friends with the interpreter, I'm pretty sure simply being spared the same fate and being treated decently for what, three months, and eventually being let go for whatever reason (ransoms paid, assumption of better returns-of-investement from release than execution when demands aren't met, the boss of the group having a particularly good day, Jupiter in the house of Aquarius...), would leave most people with at least neutral opinions of their captors.

Hell, for all we know she might've gotten along better with at least some of her captors for a longer time than with the late interpreter; positive rapports can be established with people in far shorter amounts of time in even more unlikely situations.

'Sides, if you ain't been there don't talk so authoritatively. People's heads often work pretty funny, especially in extended stressful circumstances. If *I* was held hostage by ruthless, armed insurrectionists who killed an aquaintance of mine in front of my eyes for three months and treated well over the entire period, I'd also end up with a pretty positive view of the lot. Even if it was only an appreciation of their "polite bandit" approach to holding hostages.

Mind you, I'm perfectly willing to believe the whole thing is a big fat lie if solid proof is procured. Circumstantial, tendentious and ad hominem speculation doesn't cut it though.

[Scurvy]

another ~:thumb: but this time to watchman....

[Vladimir]

Whether or not the kidnapping was staged, this is the message the US public needs to hear.

I agree; but for a much different reason (oh ya, we need Cindy Sheehan clone :dizzy2: )

[Goofball]

Watta load of conspirationalist bull built on exceedingly shaky kitchen-psychological assessement. Especially if she wasn't particularly close friends with the interpreter, I'm pretty sure simply being spared the same fate and being treated decently for what, three months, and eventually being let go for whatever reason (ransoms paid, assumption of better returns-of-investement from release than execution when demands aren't met, the boss of the group having a particularly good day, Jupiter in the house of Aquarius...), would leave most people with at least neutral opinions of their captors.

Well, then those hypothetical people you are referring to are much more forgiving than I am.

Because let me tell you something that I am certain of:

If some group of "freedom fighters" had kidnapped me and a co-worker, then murdered that co-worker and held me hostage for three months then let me go, whether that murdered co-worker was only a passing acquaintance or an old friend of many years, my opinion of my kidnappers would be very simple:

They are filthy, low-life, worthy of nothing more than rotting in prison for the rest of their lives, scumbag murderers.

I would have nothing but hatred and contempt for them for committing that murder.

Add to that the terror and uncertainty they had put me, my wife, my son, my parents, and my friends through, and I think I would hate them even more.

So to have somebody who was put in the stuation I just described brimming over with praise and kind words for her kidnappers is extremely puzzling to me.

Put aside your own views on the whole Iraq situation, and look at this incident just in terms of its own narrow context, and I'm sure you will agree with me.

Carroll's actions and attitudes are highly questionable in this case.

[Don Corleone]

...kickin ass & taking names...

Wow, Goofy coming out and actually publicly agreeing with me... I'm touched, old friend. You might want to check for fever...:nurse:

Watchman, come on... you may hate the war and agree with everything Jill Carrol had to say, but really... if somebody shot a coworker, you could see yourself being buddy-buddy with the guys who shot him, and kidnapped you for 3 months, fearing for your life every day? Boy am I glad I don't work with you. :creep: You're straining the bounds of credibility here, my friend.

[Scurvy]

Carroll's actions and attitudes are highly questionable in this case.

i think its unlikely it was a complete set up....

[Goofball]

Wow, Goofy coming out and actually publicly agreeing with me... I'm touched, old friend. You might want to check for fever...:nurse:

Ah, but it is really you who is agreeing with me, Don. Check out my first post in this thread: #27.

I actually beat you to it on this one...

~;)

[Goofball]

Carroll's actions and attitudes are highly questionable in this case.i think its unlikely it was a complete set up....

I don't mean questionable in a necessarily conspiratorial sense. I'm finding her praise of the kidnappers to be morally questionable. Actually, "questionable" is too weak a word. Let's use "despicable" instead.

[Watchman]

If a bunch of cold-blooded murderers willing to kill and die for their Cause, and who killed someone I know in the front of my eyes, held me prisoner for three months yet failed to brutalize me despite the fact I was completely at their mercy and pretty much by definition without means of escape, I'd sure as Hell be fairly appreciative of their restraint.

Had I managed to establish a reasonably friendly rapport with them under the period, doubly so. Especially if that relatively positive relationship contributed to my continued well-being.

If they also during that time could present a good case of just why they're doing all this shit anyway, all the more so if it happened to at least partially match my own already extant take on the matter, I'd also be likely to view them in more positive light. Doubly so if this particular group's motivations were idealistic enough, or contained sufficiently strong normative elements, to contribute to my continued safety.

The Stockholm Syndrome could also well kick in by around this point.

That, after those three months, they let me go unharmed instead of for example murdering me in front of a camera, possibly despite their demands not having been met, I'd also be feeling quite relieved and somewhat grateful of their restraint. Doubly so if I had reasons to believe whatever friendly rapport I might've established with them contributed to this ending.

By that point the fact they killed someone known to me would be rather secondary indeed, I've no doubt. Although things could well be different if it was a close friend or, God forbid, a blood relative.

This, anyway, is the result I ended up with after assuming myself into the same scenario with a healthy dose of intellectual and moral honesty thrown in. Would I truly react like that if it actually happened ? Damned if I know; when it comes down to it, nobody really knows how they react when the push comes to shove. I have, however, not the slightest difficulty understanding psychologically how this Carroll woman could end up in that reaction.

Personal opinion: some people here lack a fair bit of empathy.

'Course, the whole thing might also be a big fat lie. I'm a firm believer in the "innocent until proven guilty" principle though.

[Don Corleone]

I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree here. I'm just having a hard time swallowing that some group could kill a coworker of mine in front of my very eyes, and I'd happily sing their praises about how wonderful they are.

What's more, if the video that got sent in of her was even remotely accurate, they didn't treat her all that well. Waving a sword around talking about beheading somebody doesn't qualify as 'what a swell bunch of fellas' in my book.

I'm not without empathy. My empathy is for the family of the poor translator.

[Watchman]

Around here empathy tends to mean "ability to place yourself in the other person's position."

[Goofball]

If a bunch of cold-blooded murderers willing to kill and die for their Cause, and who killed someone I know in the front of my eyes, held me prisoner for three months yet failed to brutalize me despite the fact I was completely at their mercy and pretty much by definition without means of escape, I'd sure as Hell be fairly appreciative of their restraint.

I would certainly appreciate the fact that I was still alive. But I would not be giving them any credit for it, and I would not be thinking they were a great bunch of guys.


Had I managed to establish a reasonably friendly rapport with them under the period, doubly so. Especially if that relatively positive relationship contributed to my continued well-being.

If they also during that time could present a good case of just why they're doing all this shit anyway, all the more so if it happened to at least partially match my own already extant take on the matter, I'd also be likely to view them in more positive light. Doubly so if this particular group's motivations were idealistic enough, or contained sufficiently strong normative elements, to contribute to my continued safety.

The Stockholm Syndrome could also well kick in by around this point.

And I don't discount that possibility. Actually, I'm hoping that is what is behind her despicable comments.


That, after those three months, they let me go unharmed instead of for example murdering me in front of a camera, possibly despite their demands not having been met, I'd also be feeling quite relieved and somewhat grateful of their restraint. Doubly so if I had reasons to believe whatever friendly rapport I might've established with them contributed to this ending.

By that point the fact they killed someone known to me would be rather secondary indeed, I've no doubt.

Well, I guess that's where we differ.


Although things could well be different if it was a close friend or, God forbid, a blood relative.

Because they are murderers, just not quite as bad murderers if they kill somebody you don't know very well?


This, anyway, is the result I ended up with after assuming myself into the same scenario with a healthy dose of intellectual and moral honesty thrown in. Would I truly react like that if it actually happened ? Damned if I know; when it comes down to it, nobody really knows how they react when the push comes to shove. I have, however, not the slightest difficulty understanding psychologically how this Carroll woman could end up in that reaction.

Personal opinion: some people here lack a fair bit of empathy.

I agree. Imagine how the family of Allan Enwiyah must feel to hear Jill Carroll talking about what stand up guys his murderers are.

[Don Corleone]

Around here empathy tends to mean "ability to place yourself in the other person's position."

I'm familiar with the term 'empathy' as well as the term 'misplaced empathy', thank you very much. As I said, in this multiple choice question:

Who is most deserving of support?

-A The kidnappers who murdered Jill Carrol's translator
-B Jill Carrol, who gushed in praise at the murderers
-C The translator, who got murdered

I gotta go with C. Clearly, you're with A & B. That's fine, I'm sure you a decent enough fella over a pint. We're not going to see eye to eye on this one, so here's where I bow out.

[Watchman]

Because they are murderers, just not quite as bad murderers if they kill somebody you don't know very well?Yes, quite so, also keeping in mind that they didn't kill me. This is the conclusion I reached after some self-reflection. It is, I suspect, actually the same with most people, although whether they're willing to admit it or not is an entirely another matter.

This in theory, anyway. If it would go that way in practice I've no idea of.

Which is really the point. None of us actually know what this Carroll lady went or didn't go through; none of us actually know what went on in her head during it; and none of us actually know how we'd react in the same situation.

Which is why I find excessively moralizing statements on the matter highly distasteful. They make me suspect the issue is not so much passing judgement on Jill Carroll as reinforcing one's own conviction of how she should (or not) be reacting, and by extension how one hopes he himself would react (or not). I think it's called projection in psychological jargon.

And also upholding certain other established ideas. I seem to be detecting a certain categorical unwillingness here to be willing to admit the possibility there might actually be insurgent groups well-behaved enough to leave a freed kidnapping victim with a relatively positively view of themselves and their ideas, or for that matter that there might be anything positive of them at all - or alternatively or partly that someone who's spent an extended period "on the ground" (on a whole different degree of magnitude) could justifiably come out with a legitimate sympathy for the overall cause of the insurgents. Dicothomical denial or something like that. Because the assumption is that the insurgents have to be bad, it is an impossibility there might be something good about them or that someone with purported extensive personal contact with the lot would say something good about them without, at the very least, being a dirty, despicable collaborator.

...the more I look at it the more I feel like it's really ideological.

[Goofball]

Yes, quite so, also keeping in mind that they didn't kill me. This is the conclusion I reached after some self-reflection. It is, I suspect, actually the same with most people, although whether they're willing to admit it or not is an entirely another matter.

This in theory, anyway. If it would go that way in practice I've no idea of.

Which is really the point. None of us actually know what this Carroll lady went or didn't go through; none of us actually know what went on in her head during it; and none of us actually know how we'd react in the same situation.

Which is why I find excessively moralizing statements on the matter highly distasteful. They make me suspect the issue is not so much passing judgement on Jill Carroll as reinforcing one's own conviction of how she should (or not) be reacting, and by extension how one hopes he himself would react (or not). I think it's called projection in psychological jargon.

I fail to see how condemning a woman for praising people whom she knows to have murdered an innocent man is "excessively moralizing."

You'll have to elaborate on that one for me.


And also upholding certain other established ideas. I seem to be detecting a certain categorical unwillingness here to be willing to admit the possibility there might actually be insurgent groups well-behaved enough to leave a freed kidnapping victim with a relatively positively view of themselves and their ideas, or for that matter that there might be anything positive of them at all - or alternatively or partly that someone who's spent an extended period "on the ground" (on a whole different degree of magnitude) could justifiably come out with a legitimate sympathy for the overall cause of the insurgents. Dicothomical denial or something like that. Because the assumption is that the insurgents have to be bad, it is an impossibility there might be something good about them or that someone with purported extensive personal contact with the lot would say something good about them without, at the very least, being a dirty, despicable collaborator.

...the more I look at it the more I feel like it's really ideological.

On your part perhaps.

Step back and look at it for a second.

You are the one who seems to have framed his opinion in this matter around your own ideology vis a vis the Iraq war.

I have been an opponent of the Iraq invasion from the beginning, and completely disagree with just about everything the U.S. has done in the country.

But I've put that aside to examine this case in terms of it's own merits.

The facts are simple:

We have a woman praising people who kidnapped her, held her captive for three months, and murdered her coworker.

Put your own ideology about Iraq aside for a moment and try to employ some of this intellectual honesty you were talking about earlier.

[Watchman]

You'll have to elaborate on that one for me.Goes under the heading of "applied psychology", or trying to figure out where she's coming from to hold such views. Since the "conspiracy" angle remains as of yet unproven, what remains is to try and figure and tentatively reconstruct out the rough psychological processes that might conceivably bring her to her current position.

What I find to be "excessively moralizing" is the "how could she say such things, I for one never would" attitude implicit in many comments. I find that... frankly, hypocritical. You can't know how such an experience would actually affect you; this makes such a righteously condeming tone downright... well, I can't actually think up a good term. Highly distasteful, in any case. I would also refer to my earlier quasi-psychological hypothesis for an explanation why I find that stance so dubious.


Put your own ideology about Iraq aside for a moment and try to employ some of this intellectual honesty you were talking about earlier.I am. Although I can't vouch for it (I know my limitations when it comes to objectivity) I at least should be saying the same thing regardless of quite what her captors were standing for. The point here is understanding her subjective experience and the processes involved in it, which duly lead to comprehending her statements without lurid (and unproven) charges of conspiracies, or haughty dismissals as... well, the tone of most of the comments leveled against her would seem to suggest she's breaking some sort of taboo or norm, and gives me the feeling she's being regarded as somehow traitorous or, I dunno, tainted.

[econ21]

Something here does not compute.

Taffy is a Taff, where did you get that interview transcript? I can't find it through google. It does not seem consistent with a person who would write this:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1230/p01s03-woiq.html

Nor does the alleged interview square with an experienced US reporter who is just being nominated for a PBS prize for courage in journalism:

http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/carroll/carroll_update.html

On the comments about headscarves - sadly I suspect that if you are a youngish Western woman working in Iraq you effectively have to wear headscarves if you want to be treated with respect and to interview ordinary men. Certainly, they seem ubiquitous with any UK female journalists who actually gets onto the streets. To suggest Carroll is Muslim because of a headscarf is rather a leap, especially when she writes for the Christian Science Monitor.

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

Simon.

It is on ABC.

It is also on various Jihadi websites apparently. It was recorded before she was released but she apparently bears no signs of being under duress. I imagine it was staged though.

[KukriKhan]

So here I am, sitting in a room - the same room I've been sitting in for the past what... 81 days? They killed my driver and took me here. There is a mattress, a chair, a frosted-and-covered window, a shower, and a toilet. I am fed.

They have not hurt me - yet. They have promised to release me several times, but that hasn't happened. They told me they've killed another American (male) hostage. Today, they demand that I translate a script from Arabic to English, and prepare to read it as a statement - then I can be released.

What was it that Army guy told us during our Orientation Briefing?... "If taken hostage, do whatever they say to do, in order to increase your chances of survival."

---------------------

I'd do it too.

I'd recommend we get out of Iraq, that GWB covert to Islam, that Laura Bush don the veil, that the US adopt sharia as the law of the land, that Israel be wiped off the map, that Iran be given the entire US inventory of nuk-a-ler weapons, and that Detroit be forced to field a winning football team.

And it would be genuine. Believeable. Sincere.

And if it worked, and I was released, I'd act the same sympathetic way for a few days - until I, and those I care about, were out of danger. Preferably out of the country... way out.

[Don Corleone]

Well said Kurki. That's the first explanation I've heard that makes even remote sense. I didn't realize the interview transcript was from when she was still in custody. That does put things in a much different light.

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

I've heard all sort of theories about why she has said and done various things both before and after her release, ranging from being treacherous to being threatened (and/or her family) and including ones along the line of Kukri's.

I was simply showing that there was more than one comment that she made that may upset people.

[KukriKhan]

I was simply showing that there was more than one comment that she made that may upset people.

No argument there.

I humbly submit, however, that none of us here can pass judgment with authority, on how our world might look if coercively confined to the same 9 x 12 room, day-after-day, - our life in the hands of whatever unknown next guy walks into the room.

A felon perhaps, with 80-some days in solitary confinement, might qualify for testimony.

Mind you: I don't defend her words. I just take them with a 50-pound bag of salt.

[econ21]

Yes, I just heard on the BBC that the video "interview" was posted on an Islamist website and done while in captivity. Kukrikhan is right - standard advice (from the military, SAS, whoever) is to do what your captors demand. It's not very dignified, but for terrified young civilian who wants to get home to join her family, I can't condemn it. I would not place much weight on the absence of visible duress. The kidnappers are the kind of people who will cut your throat on video and post the killing on the internet for the world to see. What more do they have to do to coerce you? Chopping off a finger, mafia style seems tame by comparison to the horrors of what has been done to many kidnapped hostages.

When you read the December Christian Science article by Carroll I posted, there is no way the words of the interview come from the same mind. The article recognises the complexities of the situation in Iraq - the Shiites, Kurds, Sunnis and all the various competing political groups within those ethnic groups. It just does not make sense to talk - as the interview does - about the "Mujahadeen" winning. Who are the Mujahadeen? If they are radical Shiites, well I am afraid they already seem to be winning. Their elders already run the government. If they are AQ-type or Sunni insurgents, currently predicting their victory seems absurd. (Even if the US leaves, Iran is unlikely to let the Sunnis come back to supremacy.) I suspect the interview was largely scripted - the bits about the Mujahadeen being smarter, better fighters etc while the US tortures women in Abu Ghrav are giveaways. I am almost surprised the terrorists did not wave and say "Hello, Mum!".

Given that Carroll is an acclaimed journalist and will be safely back in the US, no doubt we will learn a lot more in the future about the circumstances of her captivity and the making of the video.

[Tachikaze]

Simon.

It is on ABC.

It is also on various Jihadi websites apparently. It was recorded before she was released but she apparently bears no signs of being under duress. I imagine it was staged though.
In my eyes, this information makes this whole thread meaningless.

[Ser Clegane]

Just for clarification - are we talking about more more than one interview here?

The one on the "Washington Post" website Dave linked to was apparently mader after the release (at least that's what the disclaimer on the website says); it should be noted though that it was made by the "Iraqi Islamic Party" -perhaps not the environment were a hostage that just has been released would go on a rant about her muslim kidnappers.

Is the interview Taffy referred to and that is supposed to have been made before the release a different interview?

[Banquo's Ghost]

In my eyes, this information makes this whole thread meaningless.

This thread had a meaning? ~:confused:

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

I just read that all the dodgy statements she made both before and after her capture were because she was threatened. I understand she disavowed her comments when she reached Germany.

:2thumbsup:

Edit: hopefully our concerns over her comments can now be disposed off.

[Devastatin Dave]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CARROLL_STATEMENT?SITE=7219&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-04-01-16-34-49

Does anyone know a good doctor that could remove my head from my ass?:shame:

[Ser Clegane]

Thanks for posting this latest information, guys.

For the sake of fairness it should be noted that the interviews were indeed "fishy" and "staged".

[Banquo's Ghost]

Edited: Memo to self - don't post when angry.

[Tachikaze]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CARROLL_STATEMENT?SITE=7219&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-04-01-16-34-49

Does anyone know a good doctor that could remove my head from my ass?:shame:
In a way, you were correct. Like Ser Clegane said, things weren't what they seemed.

You still need a doctor, though.
~;p

[Devastatin Dave]

You still need a doctor, though.
~;p
What's the name of your doctor, I'm sure he's had much experience of this procedure with you as a patient!!! Gotcha!!!:laugh4:

[Xiahou]

During my last night of captivity, my captors forced me to participate in a propaganda video. They told me I would be released if I cooperated. I was living in a threatening environment, under their control, and I wanted to go home alive. So I agreed.

Things that I was forced to say while captive are now being taken by some as an accurate reflection of my personal views. They are not. The people who kidnapped me and murdered Alan Enwiya are criminals, at best. They robbed Alan of his life and devastated his family. They put me, my family and my friends - all those around the world - who have prayed so fervently for my release - through a horrific experience. I was, and remain, deeply angry with the people who did this.

I also gave a TV interview to the Iraqi Islamic Party shortly after my release. The party had promised me the interview would never be broadcast or aired on television, and they broke their word. At any rate, fearing retribution from my captors, I did not speak freely. Out of fear I said I wasn't threatened. In fact, I was threatened many times.

Also, at least two false statements about me have been widely aired: One, that I refused to travel and cooperate with the U.S. military and two, that I refused to discuss my captivity with U.S. officials. Again, neither statement is true.Good to hear, but it shouldnt have been that suprising either. The real story, imo, are the now apparent ties between the Iraqi Islamic Party and kidnapping rings.

[Tribesman]

The real story, imo, are the now apparent ties between the Iraqi Islamic Party and kidnapping rings.
Way to go Sherlock , but why stop with the Iraqi Islamic Party , how about a bit of detective work to decide which parties are ethnicly cleansing areas to get their ethnicly pure state , which parties are killing people appointed to their departments that don't fit in with their ideas .
Whatever next ? the realisation that when you decide to get insurgent/ militia /terrorist groups involved in the political process it means that the parties have ties to insurgents/ militia / terrorists .:idea2:

[LeftEyeNine]

DevDave,ok you beat us. Now I owe you an appointment with my doctor. :smoking:

[Tachikaze]

What's the name of your doctor, I'm sure he's had much experience of this procedure with you as a patient!!! Gotcha!!!:laugh4:
I'm beyond the doctors help now.

[Devastatin Dave]

I'm beyond the doctors help now.
If that's the case then I'm presently in the morgue.:bow: