Redstate

But I'm not.  There's a chance this is Stockholm syndrome, but I get the feeling Carroll was never really upportive of liberating Iraq in the first place.

That perhaps she was debriefed and asked not to say anything.  Perhaps a better approach would be to wait and see.

Hard as it is for me to say, I have to tip my hat to the NY Times and their coverage of this interview.

In some audio cuts I heard from this interview on the radio this morning, Ms. Carroll made Cindy Sheehan look, well, normal.  Here's just a snip:

"I feel guilty. I also feel that it just shows that the mujahedeen are good people fighting an honorable fight, a good fight. While the Americans are here, the occupying forces, you know, treating the people in a very, very bad way. So I can't be happy totally for my freedom because there are people still suffering in prisons, in very difficult situations."

At some point, Ms. Carroll will have to answer for that and other statements she made during this interview.

tape was made while she was still a captive. So I don't have a problem with what she said, I can imagine I'd say a lot of stuff to get out of that predicament.

What I can't fathom is the giggly demeanor in the tape.

But I expect she will either explain it - or it will just be something we cannot explain.

shrugs

For all we know, she was trying to make the tape unusable.

That was not at all clear to me - thanks for clearing it up.

In that case, I am more than happy to cut her a tremendous amount of slack for that tape.  You say what you need to say to stay alive - period.

I have no answers for the demeanor, though.  Perhaps she was "chemically enhanced" to make her appear more relaxed.  Don't know.

There are many ways to resist captivity.  I recall reading how a POW once gave a confession that listed a cartoon character as his squadron commander.

It could be that she willingly posed as being kidnapped to raise money fo rthose whom she feels a great deal of loyalty.

It could be that she is like the so-called Christians who are simply ungrateful churls, and has no sense of gratitude for those who have saved her.

in this case.

She gets no slack from me. She was anti-America when she went over there and I say the kidnapping was a put up deal from the get go. Poor translator wasn't in the equation but it made it look legit.

she said was heartfelt. The vision of her in that muslim garb way after she was freed gave me an impression that it was quite natural for her.

Just an impression. I guess she might have a chance to redeem herself, but I won't be holding my breath.

she was anti-America before all this... That makes it clearer.

Nice diary -- I found it odd that the events of the day she was kidnapped were not mentioned (her translator's death, for example).  However, I'm quite happy to extend lots of leeway to her.  She has just been through an unimaginable ordeal, and perhaps life before her kidnapping is remote.  (Your mention of Stockholm syndrome is well-founded -- that was my first thought on hearing of Carroll's words on her captors.)

There's another possible aspect of this.  I have read accounts of several Iraq kidnappings that were more-or-less "business" transactions, with monetary gain as their primary objective.  Such kidnappers may borrow the trappings of Islamic extremism as a method of increasing pressure on the group or individuals they are extorting, but it's probably "just business".  I wonder if Carroll was victim of such a transaction -- that also may explain her comparatively benign treatment by her captors.

As she is a journalist, I'm sure we'll hear details sooner or later.  

...if I would call her anti-American but she spent a lot of time in Jordan preparing for her "assignment" and seemed to - let's say, "adapt" - very well to the Middle Eastern culture and sympathize.

I'm very curious to hear what she has to say after she's been home for a while...

...if the following were true:

1. You were kidnapped by terrorists for 80 days.
   
2. You were told you could go free if you said XYZ.
   
3. You were dropped off at Sunni Party Headquarters before you saw an American face.
   
4. You were forced to conduct an interview at Sunni Party Headquarters.

Would you tell the Sunni politician how much you hated the kidnappers?  Or would you keep reading from the script until you were out of Sunni hands and in American hands?  I think we all know the answer.  There is absolutely NO evidence that Carroll said any of these things of her own volition.  Every piece of evidence points in the exact opposite direction: that she made these statements under duress or in fear that she would be killed or recaptured.

I love how, at the start of the war, the comments on Redstate.org were full of writers extolling the Iraqi people.  How Iraqis are entitled to freedom and democracy.  How Iraqis deserve better than Saddam Hussein.

I challenge those who claim Carroll "hates America" to find a single quote of Carroll attacking the U.S. while she's NOT in fear for her life. All she ever did was express a desire to help and understand Iraqis.  And for that she is attacked by the same crowd who once claimed that every Iraqi should taste freedom.  

that's all this is.  And anyone that really believes that the US does not "deal" with terrorists, is nuts.  For all who have been in the services, you know this to be true.  It's safe for us to say we don't deal, but we do.

two thumbs up for their warm hospitality.  The food was delicious, especially the Tabâ hajah dish that Ahmed whipped up at my reception.  The blindfold was a luxurious silk with a handy one-touch clasp for easy removal.  Sleeping accomodations were cozy in a rustic way.  My only complaint was the scimitar wielded over my head in a much too casual manner."    

Perhaps Jill should put her writing talents to work on a Zagat guide to the top terrorist hostels throughout the Middle East?

That I would stick to my guns.  After all, the Only thing that cannot be taken from you is your good name.  I fully intend to be buried with mine...

First, that you've already had your one warning.

Second, blam.

here's some explanation:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/world/01iraqcnd.html?hp&ex=1143867600
&en=10d9a166a5f667d4&ei=5094&partner=homepage

I for one, wimpy, pathetic liberal that I am, would lie like a rug to get free from my captors. I have a family that needs me, and I would figure that "my good name" could be vindicated once I was back home safely.

I'm not even going to touch the idea that the kidnapping was a put up job.

My (Republican) husband (modo) and I stopped coming to RS a while ago, I just happened to pop back today. I don't see what Owenz said that is so offensive people are ready to ban him. Am I missing something, or have folks gotten that defensive here in the last 6 months?

If I thought that I could get out alive.  But I doubt that would happen if I'm ever captured by terrorists.

I didn't criticize Australian hostage Doug Wood for making that same decision, and if Jill Caroll emulates him I have no particular plans to criticize her, either.

...he slung mud.

or something to keep my interrogation techniques in check, I could very probably make you so affraid of your own shadow, you'd piss your pants everytime you saw it.

You may think your a tough man, I'm sure there must be some pride it that, but I have no doubt, that you, me or anyone else here would crack like a brittle, frozen piece of porcelain should you undergo some of the techniques I have knowledge of, especially since your life would mean nothing to me.

In a few days she'll realize it's all over and I think you'll see her change her story over time and share more of what actually happened.

I expect to be banned for this, so goodbye.  I've had a few good conversations on this site, but clearly things have gotten worse and worse around here.

I thought that Jill Carroll's statements were a little strange.  But, given the number of perfectly reasonable explanations for her statements (from the duress she was clearly under to Stockholm Syndrome, etc), saying that she is somehow not grateful enough for her return -- or, worse, that she was complicit in this whole ordeal -- is beyond uncharitable.  It's beyond mean-spirited.  It's obscene.  To hold someone who has gone through such an extraordinary ordeal, who has suffered and whose family and friends have suffered responsible is bizarre.  You have questioned her patriotism and worse without evidence, without even waiting for her to return to this country.  Listen to what she says with a cool head.

But, of course, that's not going to happen.  You'll twist her words, and you'll read into things what you want to see, as you always do.

And then, you'll ban people for suggesting otherwise.  You'll say that people are flinging mud when they reply, quite calmly it seems, to a post that makes the most lurid and reprehensible charges against someone who has gone through an ordeal that you (or me!) can't understand.  Maybe you'll even couch it in some macho, cowbow way.

I know I'm in someone else's house, and I generally hold my tongue and read things and try to read things in a charitable light.  But it's just not possible anymore.  If you think you're being even-handed on the bannings, then we just don't have enough common ground to have any discussion, so consider me gone.  Whether you ban me or not is up to you.

...but martyrdom doesn't become you.  If Jill can forgive a bunch of bloodthirsty thugs, perhaps you can forgive us, too?

Yeah, I'm a little more calm now, and on re-reading that, it's a bit over the top.  That said, I stand by the content, if not the tone.

Anyway, that some people say some crazy things is not news.  That some front-paged posts make me angry isn't news -- I kinda come here to be challenged.  But the way banning has been functioning lately is what's inexcusable.  I've already given myself two other 'cooling down' periods.  Maybe, some day when I have more time, I'll compile some of the worst things to come out of commenters and compare the reactions from management.  That's all I'm really asking for -- either you police these comments fairly or not at all.  I won't get offended if you don't slap us for saying how ridiculous you're being (grin)

Am I missing something, or have folks gotten that defensive here in the last 6 months?

IMHO RS has changed quite a bit in the last 6 months. Personally, I find I have less to say here than I used to, but I'm under no illusions that such an outcome is any great loss to those who (re)determine the mission of this site. RS has experienced quite a bit of growth, and with success comes change; or perhaps it's the changes that have led to the growth. In any event, there's still quite a lot of excellent, thoughtful commentary here, and quite a lot not.

Anyway, I enjoyed your posts when you were here, and my best to you and your husband. Cheers.  

Who wants to bet that as time goes by and more and more info comes to light, we're going to find out that the whole thing's been a set up, and that this girl is a traitor and complicit in the murder of her supposed translator.

don't you think?  Let's at least give her an opportunity to get home before we start with the conspiracy stuff.

Sheesh!

Taliban Johnny, Richard Reid, Timothy McVeigh, the British nationals who bombed their own subway system, and I'm sure you can add to this list as well.

There are just too many western young people who are consumed by anti-Americanism, and anti-westernism in general.  I'm frightened; I'm sick of them; I want them outed, their ideas shunned.  It's called the Savannah survival response, know what that is?

is that this will all quietly fade into the background. She's a member of the club so the MSM is not likely to pursue it very far.

on this one, though I'm not holding my breath.   But if not, then it's up to the ususal suspects, Powerline, RS...even Drudge, etc., to get the truth out there.

This was a 28 year old want to be journalist who got captured by some really evil people, got an Iraqi translator killed, and almost got herself killed. She came out the other end in one piece, that's nice for her family and all, but in the general scheme of things, she was and is irrelevant.

I for one don't give a rat's patootie what she thinks, what she has said or really much about her. She was and is just another ambitious young person who got into something that here that was much bigger than her 28 years on earth taught her to understand or much less deal with.

So who cares?

because in this narcissistic, self absorbed day and age she has a megaphone. Her comments carry far more weight than are the due of a 28 year old but that's the fact.

WOW!  That is so true!  And the MSM focuses on these young people, often to the exclusion of older, wiser voices.

"Much to do about nothing"

I am not a psychiatrist, but to me, it looks like a textbook case of Stockholm Syndrome.

She is in good physical shape after a long captivity. Presumably she was not beaten, raped, or tortured. If she was with them that long and not harmed, Stockholm Syndrome is very likely.

The thing is, the primary purpose of the moderation at RS isn't the protection of a civil dialogue between potentially opposing parties, but the protection of whatever agenda RS is trying to advance. What gets annoying is how bannings are so often motivated by the latter but justified by the former, as if there were actually some objective standard of civility here, and the moderation were following its traditional, apolitical role. Here we have one guy being banned for "mud-slinging" when the entire thread is filled with ridiculous accusations--but of course, since those ridiculous accusations are being lobbed at a member of the "liberal media" they serve RS's anti-MSM agenda and will go unchecked by moderation.

Heck, watch me get banned for this.

You could chalk that up to her being terrified out of her mind. Lot's of people (myself included) smile and grin when they are nervous or in uncomfortable positions, like say, at a funeral or memorial service. You feel like an ass for giving a totally inappropriate response to the situation, but you can't help it, it's reflex.

If someone was pointing a gun at my head, I'd probably be grinning ear to ear.

Guilt is one of liberal's best weapons. They sucker a lot of people in on threads like this.

waawaaa how can you be so cruel waawaa don't judge people waawaaa what if it happened to you.

dailykos satisfies a lot of those whining needs. Not speaking of anyone in particular...

new here compared to many others, I just love those comments about how RS changed for the worse, became more intolerant, etc etc.

Real definition of "toleration" is acceptance of liberal positions, and no moral standards.

There's nothing particularly moral about a rush to judgement.

...is that you?

Oh, Carroll...the lefty plant who went over to Iraq as a CSM journalist to deliberately get kidnapped?  And then deny it when she got back home?  Thanks for letting me know she's made the round trip and front page of every newspaper in America.  Now, let's move on...

I regularly see posts entitled 5 n/t.  I'm reasonably certain that n/t means 'no text', but what's the 5?  Thanks

It is a leftover from the old ratings system.  If some one gives you a 5, that usually signals agreement or that they liked what you had to say.

to blink "TORTURE" with his eyelids while taping his propaganda video? That guy was brilliant. And incredibly courageous. I'm sure he received plenty more of what he was warning of when his captors found out what he did.

As others have said, my first thought on Caerroll was Stockholm Syndrome. I will wait for more info to come out before forming an opinion on her reaction to her release.

The role of her life

From the New York Daily News:

Reporter Jill Carroll was "acting" to win her freedom when she praised her kidnappers and criticized the U.S. occupation of Iraq in a video, her dad said yesterday.

Carroll's captors "obviously wanted maximum propaganda value in the U.S.," Jim Carroll told the Christian Science Monitor. His daughter, a free-lance journalist, was on assignment for the Boston-based paper when she was kidnapped.

"After listening to them for three months, she already knew exactly what they wanted her to say, so she gave it to them with appropriate acting to make it look convincing."

A spokeswoman for the Monitor said Carroll really didn't have any choice but to comply with the kidnappers' demands."

As I said in an earlier comment, we might want to withhold judgement until we learn more about what really happened.

From the same article:

Carroll, 28, stuck to that script in an interview she gave right after she was freed Thursday because she was still terrified by the Revenge Brigades, the shadowy group that abducted her on Jan. 7 and murdered her translator.

"She had been taught to fear them," Jim Carroll told the Monitor.

His daughter was told the U.S.-controlled Green Zone in Baghdad was "infiltrated by the mujahedeen" and after 82 days in captivity she believed them, he said.

I am not actually looking for tolerance. I did however expect a level of thoughfulness and debate that doesn't seem to be here anymore. I spent considerable time and thought at Red State last year, at first to be able to continue to converse with my Republican dh, as he was here all the time. In all honesty, I don't have a single family member, friend or colleague who voted for GWB (I am related to/hang out with pretty much only teachers, lawyers, doctors and nurses) so I was looking to learn stuff I couldn't learn at home. And I did learn a lot, I have thought through all my views, some of them have changed, some have remained the same, but I've given them all more thought and deliberation.

But to accuse someone of being complicit in murder, to assume some liberal conspiracy that would lead to a woman being pretend kidnapped to further a cause (and what exactly did that further?), to rush to judgment 2 days after she is released is neither thoughtful or helpful in my book. What she says while still under the control of her captors is very suspect in my book. Being comfortable in a head scarf while in a Muslim country as evidence of consipiracy? Geez louise, Western woman in Muslim countries cover their hair, for safety, respect and to blend in. Do you think a journalist would be ablt to do her/his job sticking out like an American sore thumb on the streets? My sister lived in Egypt for a year, and covered her hair. It was a safety issue.

I have never been to DKos or any of the other sites, as frankly, I don't have the patience for liberals who don't give thoughtful measured responses, I had never even heard of any of these blogs until I started coming to RS. I don't have a single friend or colleague who goes to those sites. But now it seems that RS is just the Republican dkos.

she was crying and talking about how she would be killed, I believe.

She was not well treated.

Her bodyguard / driver was murdered in front of her.

She was held hostage for months at risk of her life.

We complicate things way too much with syndromes and excuses, imho.

I would guess. They killed the translator, kidnapped here, set a deadline, nothing happened, set another deadline, nothing happened, and they realized they had no friends on any side.

You know some of these people only think they want to be insurgents but they find out they don't even have a clue, that they're total amateurs.

the sum total of your contribution here has been a series of pathetic whines. Want to change that? Pronto?

For two reasons:

1), It looks like you really, really want me to - r0cket, too, it looks like - and I'm feeling particularly sadistic this fine morning.

2), It's much more fun to gently point out that while it's true that English has a problem with the singular and plural forms of the second person pronoun being identical, doxasticpirate really does need to learn how to work around that.

Glad to be of help!

and glad you didn't take the bait.

I am getting tired of the "I'll probably get banned for this, but if it ain't RS's viewpoint, they delete it" mantra.

How many times have you seen that Moe? A gazillion?

so we wait for her "true" explanation once she is safe at "home" (BTW, that "home" that she so roundly condemns in her message but let's skip that part for now ...) I admit to being skeptical about what will come out as her "true" feelings, if nothing else based on her profession. But I'll wait.

The bottom line of all of this however is that the damage is done. The tape is circulating in the Muslim world, the words have been said and cannot be recalled no matter how hard we wish. There will not be some major international media "splash" of her "true" feelings (unless of course her "true" feeling is to drop the stinkbomb on her country again). If her "true" feeling are love and support for her country it will be on page Z43 of the NYT. No one in the Muslim world will ever see them.

Oh, well. C'est la Vie, its just America.

deliberately outrageous, in order to ge banned. Then they can say, "SEE, see! Intolerant!"

They know they cant make it on the weight of their ideas...

I hear that many parolees throw bricks thru downtown storefronts occasionally in order to get free room and board.

I agree with everything you said.  I took a break from RedState and came back and it seems that there are fewer discussions that I can even get involved in and the few I do often devolve into pettiness quickly.

I don't understand why people feel the need to accuse Carrol of anything at this point.  Unless this was a complete fabrication, and there is no reason to believe it was, she was kidnapped by some pretty bad people.  

Accusations of treason at this point are fairly disgusting.  I think that it really it only gets traction here due to the absurd level of distrust that RS has for the MSM.  

Hey, I said above that I regret that the post came out a bit more dramatic than I wanted.  But me being banned or not says nothing about the banning policy I was talking about there.

Anyway, It's a bit late in the argument to defend the content of what I said, but I will go to bat for my grammar here: what did I say that was ungrammatical?  Where was it?  I made a typo, I see, but I don't see anything that really sticks out... Most of the instances of "you" there referred unambiguously to RS...

But, I really don't mean to start arguing English usage here...

Yes, and we deliberately make intolerant comments here, to, umm, not be able to post here in the future.

Sheesh.

said it better myself.

Thanks C17... Hope things are well?!?

Even though I'm doing it in a completely civil manner, and even though the subject at hand is something on which reasonable people could easily disagree, my position is portrayed as pathetic whining by the moderation and I'm threatened with being banned for expressing it. I'm not swearing, I'm not copy/pasting from dkos, I'm not trolling--if anything, my posts here have almost exclusively been in defense of people who I felt were being unfairly attacked, which defense in many circles would be considered commendable, regardless of the politics behind it (see John Cole's defense of your friend Ben, for instance).

Anyway, you may as well ban me. If I'm to be threatened with it every 5 comments, then realistically there is no way I'll accumulate enough of a posting history here to satisfy you.

The tape is circulating in the Muslim world, the words have been said and cannot be recalled no matter how hard we wish.

Even in the Muslim world, I think people will take it with a grain of salt, convenient though the message may be.

There is no incentive for them to 'take it with a grain of salt.' It fully agrees with the things they have been told about America, Iraq, et al.

Try to remember that these are people who were driven into the streets to kill, burn and destroy over some concocted outrage about cartoons. These are not people accustomed to questioning what they are told in the mosque; they don't have the same standard of disbelief that we have in the west.

The RS posting rules:

    No profanity.

    No personal attacks.

    No harassment or demonization of a particular individual.

    No disruptive behavior or off-topic remarks for their own sake.

I guess they're all somewhat open to interpretation, but I'm especially curious about rules 2 and 3.  By "particular individual", do you mean any given person?  If so, this Jill Carroll stuff clearly applies (she had her interpreter killed to stage a kidnapping to extort money for a terrorist group!!).  Perhaps you mean a given poster?  But then, "series of pathetic whines" might apply (though, I grant, there's plenty of room for interpretation).  Is there a time when a personal attack or demonization or harrasment (on a poster or some other individual) is justified?  Are there different rules for public figures?  Does Jill Carroll count as one?  Are there different rules for liberal posters?  Would you concede that people seem to be quicker to classify something as a personal attack if it's leveled against a friend?

I'm not trying to be a pain here, but I'm certainly not the only one who has made remarks about the enforcement of rules.  How about a little clarification?

is reserved for those commenting in this forum.

Like, even though I get ticked off at a couple of our lefty regulars, I can't call them a bunch of losers, etc.....

One thing you do need to remember, we are kind of like a family.  We can slap each other around a little and we do from time to time, but those jumping the ditch to do the same aren't allowed to do that.

Like Nick Danger says-the life is not fair principle does apply here.  If you don't like the rules of our house, you are welcome to go play somewhere else.

I guess my point was more that, if anything, the tape is probably going to have no effect on the situation over there--the people who buy it are the ones who have already found plenty of excuses to hate America, and I don't see it actually motivating anyone who wouldn't otherwise have to start chucking bombs at Americans. I mean, it's not like, absent that tape, the crazies would be packing up and going home now--they'd have found some other piece of propaganda to latch onto. Whatever role the tape plays would have just been filled by something else.

Re. the grain of salt:

I'm not sure how far the words of a young, western female non-combatant will carry.

It's a tough analogy, though, and something I've been thinking about a lot lately, and I'm not sure if I have any conclusions, so forgive me for rambling for a moment.  I mean, it's certainly true that I can get away with saying things about my family that other people (outside my family) can't.  And I've realized from the beginning that I'm playing at someone else's house.  I try to be respectful, and I think I succeed most of the time.  I probably haven't been as succesful since the whole Augustine affair...

All that said (of course there was a but... coming), whether you think of us as guests or friends who happen to be wrong about politics or intruders or people looking for arguments -- it'd be nice to treat us with enough respect to discriminate our hateful attacks from our serious questions.  If you don't feel like answering them, no one's making you.  But the last week or so, there's been so much anger that the bannings have gotten out of hand.  Most of us (not all, of course) have been more civil than many of the people we're talking to here.

Finally, if this does come down to a justifiable double standard ("Look, maybe we are more hasty on the bannings of libs, but they knew what they were getting into by posting here!!"), then it'd be nice for the admins to admit then and not play at impartiality.

"Finally, if this does come down to a justifiable double standard ("Look, maybe we are more hasty on the bannings of libs, but they knew what they were getting into by posting here!!"), then it'd be nice for the admins to admit then and not play at impartiality."

I don't think any of the editors would ever claim to be impartial.

Seriously-go find Nick Danger's post from back in July.  It is a great read and should make things crystal clear for you.

Thanks for the link -- it was put up a couple months before I started visiting.  Anyway, I read that post (here for future reference), and I generally have no truck with what is said there.  I'm okay with saying that 'personal attack' is open to interpretation, and I'm okay with saying that established users get the benefit of the doubt, and maybe I'm okay with saying that people who seem to be agreeing with the house get the benefit of the doubt.

I really can't see how anyone could give the 'benefit of the doubt' to comments like this.  Something's definitely gone wrong the last week or so -- we seem to have moved out of the bounds of reason.  In this thread, for example, it seems that chastizing r0cket and not ender goes beyond 'giving benefit of the doubt' or 'playing by house rules' or whatever...

And, even if I'm wrong about that -- I've seen a lot of posts recently that are either a) libs being banned for what seem to be slight offences and b) cons getting away with saying terrible, terrible things.  The editors, however, don't rest on your defence (or Nick's defence, circa July) -- they argue that their action or lack of action was justified purely by the actions of the poster.  I'd prefer it if they were more honest.  I know this sounds kinda hand-wavey right now, since I can't cite examples.  When I have more time, I'm going to collect some of the more egregious examples of this kind of stuff, though.

be banned.  He is our resident flamethrower and we love him.  He is also one of the earlier contributors to the site, IIRC.

He also speaks in hyperbole a lot and if you were around for a while, you would know that.

I knew right where Nick's post was BTW.  I just don't do research for others for free.

Ender has cred, rOcket does not, nor do you.  It's really that simple.  Sorry if that seems harsh but, life is not fair(Nick Danger).

This is worth checking out:

During my last night in captivity, my captors forced me to participate in a propaganda video. They told me they would let me go if I cooperated. I was living in a threatening environment, under their control, and wanted to go home alive. 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--and 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 aired on television, and 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.

I doubt that her words (under duress) will have much of an effect on Muslim sentiment, one way or the other.  But can we start to put the conspiracy theories to rest, PLEASE?

I doubt it.  The people that held her captive murdered her friends and threatened to kill her if she did no cooperate.  There's no way she sympathized with them.  Was she coerced and still under coercion until she could return to the West?  uh, yeah?

to my comment upthread, you will see that I did indeed ask for a halt on the conspiracy rhetoric.

Honestly, this woman is a reporter, not a soldier.  I was under no illusions that she probably did and said whatever they told her to in order to save herself.  And for that, I can not blame her.  Her future comments now that she is safely in the hands of Americans are the ones I will be watching.

You can not deny that her words were powerful though and will be used to encourage the jihad against us.  She was a propaganda tool and a very effective one at that.  

Obviously, Thomas won't be banned, I wasn't getting at that.  One of the reasons what he said was so egregious was because he speaks for the site in a way that J Random Commenter doesn't.  

Whether it was hyperbole or not, I'm not so sure.  He posted what he said twice, and distincly wanted to put it on the record.  He then defended himself in a way that suggested his comments weren't hyperbolic.  

I'm okay with not having cred in your eyes.  I'll sleep okay at night.  I can speak in platitudes, too.  If you give cred to someone who makes posts like Ender's, I suppose it's none of my business...

That is up to the editors.  

When you have cred tough, you can go off the reservation a little like Ender and still comment.  That's all.

As for Thomas, I don't necessarily think he was being hyperbolic then.  He does it often though.  

Oh, I didn't mean to suggest that you were peddling those theories -- that's why I didn't post this in our conversation.  I was referring more to people like jsteele, hunter, lafemme, and tbone (and borderline on others).  But, she's safe now, has released her first statement outside of Iraq, and it's hard to find fault with, no?

That she had to say some terrible things to stay alive is a tragedy.  It's an open question how effective a tool her video will be, but even if it is effective, at least we can move on from blaming her...

said on this matter.

But what would really be awesome NOW, would be to hear a non-captive reporter wax eloquent on how much they love America, how just our cause is in Iraq, how that most assuredly the true freedom fighters for their country in  Iraq are the 85% of the people that have purple fingers and that any insurgent that targets innocents deserves to rot in Hell, and how that an insurgent fights for their country in a representative democracy is to politic and vote!, not fight with a band of jihadists and saddamist dead enders to try and have 10% rule over 90%.

wouldnt that be nice

breath holding not advised

would be to hold that reporter captive at RedState for three months, congressman gamecock!

I simply said that, because of my high regard for her profession, I was inclined to think that the video might well represented her actual feelings rather than being coerced.

I have never implied that I think it was a 'put up job', that she was working with the kidnappers, or that she was complicit in any way other than possibly making a sympathetic video at the time she was released.

It now appears from her statement that she was under duress and does not see the kidnappers in a sympathetic light. That's fine. But I never said not did I imply that she was in cahoots with the kidnappers.

You stand a better chance of winning in November :-)

Sorry, I shouldn't have lumped you in with the conspiracy theorists.  I was reading back up the comments quickly, and I must have mischarecterized one of your earlier posts.  

Will really need to get a wig like Cynthia's if he wants to stand a chance.

I noticed that I was used as an example of an evil con saying horrible things...  I admit that at the time I posted some previous comments I was angry. Sometimes we all are and we say things we might say differently in a different state of mind. Why was I angry? I am angry at MSM reporters in general for slinging mud at our military, at our mission, at our way of life, at America. This Jill person is a member of the MSM... Fairly or not she evokes a rather negative response from me. Though I don't think I went too overboard since I did say it was just my opinion and interpretation of the moment.

Judging people's actions is natural for those who believe in Right and Wrong. I judge all the time, and sometimes before I know all the facts. That could be a fault, but the big difference between Conservatives and Liberals is that we strongly believe in an absolute morality.

Lots of evil lurks around us threatening to destroy America which is why I often seem angry... Unfortunately there is a lot to be angry about.

I need to do something more productive today than lurking around here and posting in this thread  (grin)

But, the "moral relativist" charge is something that I hear all the time here, and never really understood why.  No doubt, moral relativists exist in the party, but I don't think there are many of them.  It's a pretty difficult position to hold, since it basically means you can't say that anything is wrong.  I don't know how many people of various political persuasions hold to certain metaethical theories, but for what it's worth, I don't know of any moral relativists.  

Rather than people who don't believe in right and wrong, I think you'll be more likely to find people who are hesitant to call the outrage of the day good or evil.  It's not to say that evil doesn't exist -- it's just that we ought to be pretty sure about what we're condemning before we condemn it.

It's not like you have a choice between rushing to judgment and likely getting things wrong (as you might have done here) and holding your tongue and never speaking out.  The only reasonable approach that I see is to believe and judge in proportion to your evidence.  Judging Jill Carroll's character based on statements she made while in fear of her life just doesn't seem to be a reasonable thing to do, regardless of what you think of journalists.  

gamecock? How do you know that Cyntia's hairstyle is not based on gamecock's? :-)

can be a frightening, unattractive place :-)

It'll be interesting to see what she has to say in the obligatory interview she'll give to Diane, Barbara, or Katie.  Even then, I'll still be waiting, waiting to see how long after the smoke clears before she starts with the anti-American screed.

I wonder who George will cast to play her in the movie?

A far as what she said on tape, you're all quite correct: that shouldn't be held against her, shouldn't be held against anyone under that kind of duress.  But, it's all the prep work she did to get to Iraq and the immersion into the culture afterwards that leaves me profoundly suspicious of this chick, and I will remain so for a long time to come.

That implies, that the hair is "styled" or at least combed this millenia.

What you and DAH need to know is that Romney has nothing on this rooster's coif! cock combs too

and, JS despite sharing your cynicism re reporters and confidence? re me, I actually think that 3 months with terrorists would be more likely to cause a love america epiphany post stockholm, than for the libs in deKalb to vote Gamecock!

Now that Jill is on the record explaining that her anti-Bush and anti-American comments were made under duress and fear for her life, when will similar disclaimers from Durbin, Gore, Carter, Boxer, Feingold, Dean, etc. be forthcoming?  Who's holding a sword over their heads and forcing them to play the fool?

one that got mangled up in a wig making machine just before the wig making machione operator was about to throw the defective product into the incinerator!

The principal difference between RedState and Kos, is the principle difference between RedState and Kos!©

Actually the principal difference is 457,167 visits a DAY.

I've been away a while, and like flyerhawk I can't believe what you people have turned this place into. You've more warm bodies in The Pile<sup>TM</sup&gt than you have here... Too funny.

DailyKos SiteMeter

http://www.sitemeter.com/?a=stats&s=sm8dailykos

RedState SiteMeter

http://www.sitemeter.com/?a=stats&s=s19redstate

bye!

So who cares?

I ponder the same question while reading your post.  You wasted my time, all for naught.

Harsh. Does this mean the campaign is already in trouble? Your other supporters will be very distressed to hear this :-)

Durbin, Gore, Carter, Boxer, Feingold, Dean, etc. be forthcoming?  Who's holding a sword over their heads and forcing them to play the fool?

The Democratic voters...their base!

MoveOn.org, George Soros, and the Institute for Idiocy in American Life.

There was a pre-kidnapping Jill and now there's a post-kidnapping Jill -- will see if her opinions and behavior have changed any?  Will she continue to be enamoured with all things arabic, like Prince Charles?

http://adloyada.typepad.com/adloyada/images/charlesegypt06.jpg

but I bet a lot of hollywood stars belong!

I have been an avid reader/lurker on RS for close to a year now.  I have chosen not to comment because quite honestly, most of the posters are much more informed on the topical issues than I am.  I have enjoyed reading, pondering, chuckeling, etc.  

Well my first post is not in defense of Jill Kelly.  While her safe return to her family is indeed cause for praise, she herself, her motives, and all the reasons she was there in the first place need to be examined.

She is obviously a lberal, raised liberal, educated liberal.  Trying to be succint, but not too harsh, she does not think right.  Journalists by and large come from a small pool of elite universities.  The selectivity of these schools almost gurantees that the graduates come from the same cloth, taught by those just like them.  The results are predictable--liberals.  Thus foreign postings, by default, are given to those who are entirely out of touch with real Americans.  A pre-determined anti-war, moral relativity mind set exists.  There is no fundamental grounding that a Judeo-Christain perspective is the the only true perspective that exists.

I will go back to lurking and learning, but kudos to the moderators who make sure that this site is the best out there.  Through prayer, effort, and hopefully the new bench, more people will be made to think right.

My mistake

You're so right about her motives, and people either don't know what they were or feel so sorry for what she suffered that they're forgetting why she was in the middle east in the first place.  She was first hired some years ago by the Jordan Times to present an arab-friendly face to American readers.  Here's a comment by the editor, Ayman Al-Safadi, who first hired her.

"She sought to educate her people about the truth of what's going in the Arab world, which she loved before setting foot in it."

it is pretty obvious that you aren't happy posting here but it seems to have escaped your attention that you aren't a site administrator here, or an editor, nor can I find a record of you being a financial sugardaddy.

So if you don't like the way it is done here, start your own site. If, on the off chance, you have anything to contribute feel free.

sniveling may arguably be civlized, it does mark you as a person of low self-esteem.

As it seems like the only subject you have any opinions on is site administration, maybe you should harness the extraordinary insights and talents you have in this regard in creating your own site. Of course, that would require doing something besides whining over how mistreated you have been... And people would actually have to want to read it...

If she was predisposed to 'love the arab world' perhaps the last three months have led to an epiphany for her. She may well have started out with a 'Shahrazad' view of that part of the world and may, just may, have come to recognize it for what it really is, a barbarous, collection of thugs stuck in the 7th Century.

just said she retracted her comments because she was forced to make them by her captors.

It's interesting to see that you're all so ready to believe the worst about her.

I should also note that, in addition to the name thing, she didn't come from "a small pool of elite universities."  She went to UMass.

Now, if you can prove her bias, go ahead.  But if you can't get her name or background right, then I'm not sure what you're getting at...

...that the comments that Jill Carroll's captors forced her to make under threat of death are virtually identical to the comments that the Left so freely spews on a daily basis.  

Doesn't that give you the slightest pause for thought?

You obviously want to be here, given that you waited through the five days registration period; but we're not impressed by folks who deliberately miscategorize a discussion and we've no qualms about squishing your metaphorical head.

So play nice.

I must say, though, that I found her first interview yesterday rather odd. Carroll seemed bent on giving her captors a positive review, going on about how well they treated her, how they gave her food and let her go to the bathroom. And they never threatened to hit her. Of course, as we all saw in those chilling videos, they did threaten to kill her. And they shot her Iraqi translator to death.

Why make a terrorist group who put her family and friends through a terrible three-month ordeal sound like they were running a low-budget motel chain?

Now perhaps this is unfair, for there is much we do not know. We don't know why Carroll was kidnapped and why she was abruptly released. She says she doesn't either, but surely she must have gotten some clues about her abductors' outlook and tactics during her 82-day captivity. Maybe she was just shell-shocked right after being let go. Maybe she won't feel comfortable speaking out until she's back on American soil.

As my colleagues in Baghdad point out, when that interview was taped, Carroll was still in the custody of a Sunni political party with ties to the insurgency. It may have just made sense for her to be especially cautious...

I didn't miscategorize anything. It's obvious that several posters in this thread aren't willing to toss someone being held at gunpoint by kidnappers a bone.

You know, one of the reasons why nobody bothers reading RS, much less posting to it, is that they're tired of reading or receiving crap like this. Look at you--if you're not threatening people for expressing anything but the most absurdly reactionary viewpoint, you're flouting your own site's rules to chastise those who call you on your biased moderation. I'm sure it's great theater for that portion of your readership which gets off seeing "liberals" abused by a conservative power structure, but all you're doing is forcing the moderate voices out (and this on a site where half the comments would make most Americans cringe as it is).

But whatever--I wouldn't have thought this place could have gotten stupider than it was when I last visited 4 months ago, but apparently your efforts have paid off, so I'll leave you to your chorus of rabid nitwits.

the comments that Jill Carroll's captors forced her to make under threat of death are virtually identical to the comments that the Left so freely spews on a daily basis.

Care to provide a few examples? If they come on a "daily basis" you should be able to pull out a whammy or two. Blow me away. I await your response with eager anticipation.

...to dailykos.com?  Since it's now John Kerry's favorite sandbox, the opinions expressed there must be mainstream "progressive" thought.  On today's front page, you'll find all sorts of memes from Bush "betrayed the trust of Americans" to the meme du jour of "dangerous incompetence".  The only difference is that Jill Carroll made her comments with a sword wielded over her head and the average kos kid rages on while sipping a latte in his mom's spare bedroom.

Or you could refer to this morning's vaudeville performance by Russ Feingold comparing the president to King George.  

The Left is so obsessed with fighting the president that they can't spare a moment to hatch a new idea on how to fight terrorism.  What more could our enemies ask for?  

so you've got nothing. 10-4

The right response would have been, "I'm sorry, Mr. Contributor, and I'll do better next time."

Blam.

Here endeth the lesson.

That puts me in a dead heat with the DNC and two steps ahead of Barbara Boxer.

What she said on those video tapes I overlook.  It's why she went there in the first place that's a worry.  She went with an agenda -- how deeply held or well thought out that agenda was is a legit point of debate -- but it's clear if you read her history that she had one, and I'm really baffled as to why people can't see this, or why people seem to think that just because she got herself kidnapped this makes her motives moot, or even above reproach!

Stuff and nonsense to that.

As far as her having an agenda goes, it'd be nice to be able to demonstrate that -- she'd been reporting from the area for a long time, so she certainly has a body of work that could be potential evidence.  Moving to Jordan prior to the invasion doesn't constitute having an agenda.  And, Hell, even if it does -- I would judge her on the content of her reports first and foremost.  Nothing like that has come up -- I remember reading that an Army spokesman praised her for her fair and objective reports.  Now, I grant that it'd be bad PR for the Army to badmouth her reporting on the eve of her release, but it just seems like you have quite a case to prove if you want to push that angle...

And then, there's another fall-back point even after that.  Even if you think she had an agenda, and even if you think that her agenda came out in her reporting, that still doesn't make her deserving of the treatment she got at the hands of kidnappers.  I wouldn't kidnap and torture Nazis, either.  And if someone did kidnap and torture a Nazi, I'd try to get the [expletive] free.  But maybe I'm misunderstanding you...

I mean are we talking a concentration camp guard here? Or Herman Goering?  I need to know to decide if torture is acceptable...

tortured? Are you sure about that?

Just to be clear, we're talking about torture merely as punishment, or torture for the fun of it.  That's not okay for Goering or the Big H himself.  

Fair enough.  I can't really answer on account of not knowing what happened to her, and not having a good definition of "torture" ready.

If you'd prefer, you can replace all instances of "torture" with "whatever happened to Jill Carroll the last few months."  Being kidnapped, having your friend and translator killed, being confined, being threatened with death, and whatever else may have happened to her...

for truthfulness and accuracy. If it takes a few more syllables than something that is not truthful and inaccurate, so be it.

I'm sorry if my initial comment was misleading; I didn't intend it to be.  I think it's very likely that Jill was tortured -- I think it's even likely that Jill was tortured, even if nothing worse happened to her than we already know.  The reason I backed off was because I didn't want to base my argument on some debatable semantic issue.  

I may not have been quite as careful as I should have been, but I wasn't trying to be innacurate to score rhetorical points.

(That should probably read: "We're talking about torture as a political tool")

Yes, Gamecock, it would be so wonderful -- I'd send emails to all my friends!  I'd send gifts!  I'd repent in sackcloth and ashes!

But it ain't gonna happen, is it?

Sad.

never said she deserved kidnapping and torturing.

But watch this space on Jill Carroll, see what she has to say later on the college speaking circuit.

of who's arguing for what...

Let's just say, for argument's sake, that a few months from now, Jill Carroll makes some kind of statement that suggests she was opposed to the war.

Just what would that prove, now?

My first comment on the Jill Carroll kidnapping was the following:

"Taliban Jane?     By: LaFemme

Who wants to bet that as time goes by and more and more info comes to light, we're going to find out that the whole thing's been a set up, and that this girl is a traitor and complicit in the murder of her supposed translator."

Harsh?  Possibly.  But is what I said out of the realm of the conspiracy theories genre?  Absolutely not!

Think Taliban Johnny, The Shoe Bomber, Jose Padilla, the 7 British nationals that bombed London last year, and throw in a few more Oz nationals (one of whom a female) that have been arrested and sentenced for trafficking with terrorists -- and there was that Belgium chick, too (can't rem her name), and while we're at it, let's not forget about those sick chicks that blow up airliners in Russia, take children hostage in Beslan, blow up subways, and hold people hostage in theaters, and add to all those the palestinian women doing themselves in for the cause, and have you heard about the growing list of suicide wannabe females in Iran?  These people are ALL real, they're out there, and they want to do us in as well.  And the code of the west right now has to be "Do unto others, before them others do it unto you."

You think there's a good chance she faked her own kidnapping?  And, if she makes any statement remotely against the war, that'd convince you?

I guess there's just not much we could possibly say to convince each other.  If, given what we know now, you think the best explanation is that Jill Carroll had her friend and translator killed, put her friends and family through what she did, and so on in order to make some kind of bizarre political statement -- well, I just don't know what I could possibly say to you.  It may not be outside the realm of the conspiracy theory genre, but it is a pretty broad and scary genre.  This story would certainly put you in the same camp as some of the, let's say, unsavory conspiracy theorists...

You're right -- there are crazy people in the world who would pull some pretty terrible things.  But if you see that kind of behavior in just about everyone, then there's nothing I can do or say to convince you otherwise.

In her latest bit of drivel, Ellen Goodman, noted leftwing apologist, quoting the above post, said this:

TBone posted a potshot, calling Carroll ''a liar" and the kidnapping ''a total scam."

Who edited out the "liar" part or maybe it was never there? But, as we know, the left uses "liar" in the broadest of contexts.

Somebody send her an email and demand she apologize just as she proclaims we all should. I would, but it would be unseemly of me.

ellengoodman@globe.com