And now, will the real Jill Carroll, please stand up?

Posted by: special_guest at April 1, 2006 7:11 PM

Big surprise - that she was coerced into saying things that weren't true, and that her experience was "horrific". Thank God she's alive, and that the truth came out.

Posted by: champ at April 1, 2006 7:15 PM

What shocked me was that people really accepted the video at face value! First lesson of any conflict with muslims is their need for propaganda to prop up their low self esteem and poor Jill was their bird. Our media is so stupid that they went forth with this propaganda and stated it as if she was free which she was not. People ask why they gave her freedom? Its easy! The American media would do what they always do...help "Jihad inc.".

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at April 1, 2006 7:33 PM

a bit frightening that so many folks assumed she was speaking her mind while still under the physical control of the muslims. can we be more skeptical in futur? we'll have plenty of opportunities.

Posted by: StillBreathing at April 1, 2006 7:34 PM

That's a start. Now she should say much more about what she, a naif, learned painfully about how people behave in Iraq, and possibly to begin to figure out why they behave that way. And that means paying attention to Islam.

Posted by: Hugh at April 1, 2006 7:36 PM

This is great news. The power to speak freely. We can see here a perfect example of what happens when that freedom is deprived out of fear or any reason.

Lies are constantly told ... to survive the mullahs. It's done everyday in the ME. Imagine how it must be living there. It would be interesting to know how many would come clean if this threat was removed.

Posted by: Jack at April 1, 2006 7:40 PM

Darn, and too think, I thought with a gun to her head and them killing her friend she would only tell the truth.

Posted by: Ronin at April 1, 2006 7:48 PM

Darn, and too think, I thought with a gun to her head and them killing her friend she would only tell the truth.

Posted by: Ronin at April 1, 2006 7:48 PM

I can't wait to see the interview with Larry King.

And the book. And the movie...

f*#@*+*#@+%......

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at April 1, 2006 7:55 PM

I want to be on Larry King.

Posted by: Ronin at April 1, 2006 7:59 PM

I am happy that Jill Carroll has made it through her ordeal. however it is saddening to know her translator (Allan Enwiya) did not, he apparently was murdered during her abduction

Obviosly the Jihadists (The Islamic Army in Iraq)in this particular case saw that killing her would be a propaganda mistake of monumental proportions.

Armed groups have kidnapped at least 39 journalists since April 2004. Most have been released; six have been killed.

It is unfortunate that so many of the other types of hostages: Iraqi Police, Engineers, Doctors, etc do not fair so well either.
They it seems, are simply executed without to much fanfair.
(see the report on headless bodies found in and around Bahgdad)

It seems that cooperating with the infedals is just as bad as being one.

Posted by: Peter at April 1, 2006 8:01 PM

But but but..... what about the Jill Carroll, not in captivity, here?

http://www3.cjad.com/content/cp_article.asp?id=/global_feeds/CanadianPress/WorldNews/w011806A.htm

Posted by: Alert at April 1, 2006 8:27 PM

I want to be on Larry King. - Ronin

I'd tune in for that.

Posted by: Shinoliite at April 1, 2006 8:30 PM

Shinolite have your people call my people, you can join me.

Posted by: Ronin at April 1, 2006 8:35 PM

Ronin,
I want to be on Larry King with you.

Seriously though,

I was following the thread on DW where so many posters were beating up on Ms. Carroll for the comments she made on tape before her release. I was stunned to see how many people were criticizing her, condemning her, and calling her character and integrity into question. Don't we all realize by now that A) not everything the "news" agencies report is factual or complete and that B) when jihadist kidnappers hold machine guns to one's head – or anyone holds a machine gun to another’s head, for that matter – they really do mean you harm and expect you to do what they tell you to do. I wonder how many of those people criticizing the comments she made would have refused to make them if in the same position. I'm guessing not very many.

A dear friend of mine often tells me, “When someone tells you he's going to kill you, believe him.” Ms. Carroll obviously chose to believe her captors, and she did what she needed to do to get out of the situation and back to the safety of her family and her fellow citizens. There’s no shame in that. None.

And anyone who finds fault with the comments she made needs to re-examine his conscience and ask, “Would I really have done it any differently?” Its' really easy to say, "I never would have made the tape; I wouldn't have said those things under any circumstances." I'm a betting woman, though, and my money says most of us would have done exactly what she did.

Posted by: quietwatcher at April 1, 2006 8:37 PM

Quietwatcher, most of the really brave people on this list have never been shot at. It is better to be a alive coward than a dead hero. Jill is still alive and unlike allah, her God will forgive her for what she was forced to do and say.

Posted by: Ronin at April 1, 2006 8:58 PM

Quietwatcher-- good points.

I agree that one of the real stories here is how badly the media blundered (not that they'll report on that):

(1) by seizing on the video in a sensational feeding frenzy. The prospect of a "Patty Hearst" for this generation was probably irresistable. Not to mention they probably wished to some degree that many of the anti-Bush, antiwar statements she had to make were her honest opinion.

(2) by taking anything connected with mass media, including the Sunni tv station where the second interview was taped, in the Middle East at face value. The mere fact that she was "pointed to" a Sunni party office after her release also smells bad; perhaps the second interview was designed to lend credibility to the first.

Her having to make the propaganda video is seeming more like a parting shot from her captors, to make sure she returned to the US in as much of a cloud of distrust and contempt as possible. Clearly, that's been a success.

Posted by: Shinoliite at April 1, 2006 9:13 PM

I heard an interview on Washington Post radio (yes they bought local AM/FM) radio stations the day of her release of how Jill loved the Iraqi people and their culture, and really felt "more at home in Iraq than in the United States" and how she really did not approve of many of the US policies.

It was an odd type of thing to broadcast the day she was being released. This was during drive-time morning radio, on what used to be WTOP News before Washington Post bought it.

Posted by: jeffreyimm at April 1, 2006 9:23 PM

Hugh.
Why do you refer to her as a 'naif?'
Were you familiar with her reporting?

Posted by: Raw Data at April 1, 2006 9:33 PM

Inside Jihad Inc. right now there saying...

"The American devil woman tricked us. We had deal...she was converted....curse her!!! and I gave her my best Koran and on TV to....Curse her! She was supposed to be weak (in the mind) just like the Koran said!!!"

What muslims don't get is the sneaky (and smart) way American women disobey men and now the noose is off her neck may god have mercy on them. I can say from first hand knowledge that there is nothing I fear more then an angry American woman who now has a chance for payback. Foolish muslims actually believed because they controlled her body they controlled her mind. Maybe a girl from hick towns in western Iraq but not an American. She had just stepped off the airplane in Germany and was already launching into a angry diatribe. Its going to be great...kick back and enjoy the coming show and yes bestseller book.

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at April 1, 2006 10:17 PM

I was wondering when she was going to take that sack off her head...

Posted by: Ken CleanAirSystem at April 1, 2006 10:52 PM

But what was she doing there? She seems like some starry-eyed, naive little girl, going off into a war zone. To do what? Like the soldiers don't have anything better to do than to try to find and rescue these twits, putting their own lives on the line.

Fine, she said what she had to, to stay alive. I'd do the same. But I wouldn't go stupidly risk my life like that either, and expect others to risk theirs to save my dumb arse.

Posted by: feralee at April 1, 2006 10:56 PM

Re: Freed US reporter says forced into propaganda video

"Islam is a religion of intolerance." More and more people are thinking that, more and more people are going to say that to CAIR-style frauds, and it's going to change history as people more and more say that.

BTW, I understand that there is a great Islamic comic act that brings down the house with laughter. The comics say:"Islam is a religion of tolerance. Anyone who does not believe that is an Islamaphobe."

LOL. It's a great act.

Posted by: Frank at April 1, 2006 10:57 PM

1) Now will the people who bashed her on a past thread - Alarmed Pig Farmer comes to mind - take their words back?

2) Anyone who wonders why they forced her to make that statement and then let her go to make them look like cowards, liars and brutes in the eyes of the West: Which of the two statements do you think will play more often on Al Jazeera and their likes - the first or the second? All they wanted was to have propaganda material for gullible Arabs.

Posted by: Paolo at April 1, 2006 11:18 PM

it's very easy to be critical of someone but when your are in captivity a new world emerges. Respect this lady and what she had to do when she had to do it.

Posted by: winston at April 1, 2006 11:27 PM

"Why do you refer to her as a 'naif?'
Were you familiar with her reporting?"
-- from a posting above

This was a young girl who took it into her head to go off to cover stories in Iraq. She did so without any real understanding of how dangerous Iraq is, or how she could be used, and abused, by any number of people. She went first to Jordan, for six months of preparatory training in Arabic and "learning about the area." How much do you think she understood about the history of Iraq, or the effect of that history on the present? A lot? A little? Enough?

How much Arabic did she know, in order to be able to move about? Apparently not much, because she had a full-time interpreter.

She did know about the seizure and kiling of other hostages. She knew about Michael Berg, who came with all sorts of naive notions of his own about helping Iraqis. She knew what had happened to Margaret Hassan who had married an Iraqi and devoted 20 or 30 years of her life to the welfare, as Margaret Hassan chose to interpret it, of people in Iraq. And then the more doubtful ones who were kidnapped but not killed -- the two Simonettas, the hideous Giuliana Sgrena.

She should have known she was endangering not only her own life, but that of her interpreter (who was killed), and always that of would-be rescuers, for whom these free-lance innocents are like the kind of people who go off and ski in areas marked "Do Not Go -- Avalanche Area" and then go anyway, and are rescued, finally, but often it is some of the rescuers who are killed in doing the rescuing.

At some point, and that point was reached a long time ago, she should have thought less about her career, and her not terribly interesting reports (no better than any others, not piercing in any way), and her careerism, and her indifference. Had she been my child, I would have read her the riot act and forced her home. I have no sympathy left for any of these people who continue to stay in a war zone, and endanger the lives of American soldiers who will have to rescue them, or at least spend a lot of time trying to find out where they are and what can be done. Don't they have enough to do, with the fool's errand they have been sent on by those fools who sent them, and cannot admit that it is at this point a colossal waste of men, money, materiel, and a waste as well of an equally colossal opportunity to exploit the fissures within the Camp of Islam?

How much trouble should civilians who are not sent by their newspapers, who are not required as part of their job that is, to be in Iraq, give the American army by insisting on being there? What might have been acceptable in 2003, and less so in 2004, became completely unacceptable by 2005. She was seized in 2006. She had plenty of time to get out.

In describing her only as a naif I am trying to be kind.

Posted by: Hugh at April 1, 2006 11:45 PM

I will reserve judgment until I hear how she conducts herself at home. I am glad she didn't meet the same fate as Margaret Hassan, but I figure she is cut from the same cloth as this guy--
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/010745.php

Posted by: Carolyn2 at April 1, 2006 11:50 PM

Kember and company were holier-than-thou essentially vicious ideologues, as is their organization, which hides behind those words "Christian" and "peace." Jill Carroll appears merely an innocent, with some dreamy belief that she would report on so-called "real life" of "ordinary Iraqis" (which Iraqis? Sunni or Shi'a? Arab or Kurd or Turcoman or Christian? Educated or uneducated? Rich or poor? Mere anecdotal evidence, without more, as a substitute for wide learning and wider observation, infuriates. The reporter thinks he is getting to the real thing, and what is worse, so does his benighted audience. It is like those idiotic television reporters standing in
Rome or Moscow or Jerusalem, for their 1 minute, carefully modulated voice clip, with the fact of their standing there somehow giving it all a specious authenticity, when it might be much better to have someone intelligent and knowedgeable about the subject discuss it, once it has been laconically presented as a news item by some anonymous news-reader, with no on-site pictures, no phony "you are there" notions, no belief that because Tom or Jack or Huda or someone is standing right there, right where the bomb went off, right where the strikers were striking, that this can be a substitute for thought.

News should be delivered as anonymously as possible, without that cult of personality stuff -- you know, should I watch "Brokaw" (not any longer) or "Jennings" (thank god not any longer) or "Rather" (who can at long last reveal the frequency to Kenneth). A terrible development. On the other hand, analysis of the news should be made the province of those who know something, and are willing to learn more. Unlike, say, Tom Friedman.

Posted by: Hugh at April 2, 2006 12:05 AM

It is totally unimportant what J. Carroll said while in captivity. She neither need to apologies nor ask for forgiveness for what she said. Her duty was to come out alive, that was all.
Now, free and able to say whatever she wants, she will be judge by the people according to what she says.
In any situation, it is a happy ending and that is what counts. Yet, I agree with Hugh, she should not have been in Iraq in a first place. I did not read her reports, but writing for a Christian publication, would I be right to assume she was writing about the plight of Christians in Iraq?
To say, like some people did, that they “would not be a part of Moslem propaganda” is stupid. We do not know ourselves and most people would do anything to stay alive. A joke comes to mind:

A soldier was captured by the enemy and interrogated for several days to divulge information about a new manual for important military equipment. Although he was severely bitten and tortured in the most inhuman way, he did not say a word.
Luckily, he escaped and joined his own unit. His friends asked his advice how to be best prepared if captured by the enemy. “Study the manual very hard” he answered.

Posted by: pong at April 2, 2006 12:44 AM

Further in the article, there is this:

After her release Thursday, Carroll showed up at the offices of the Iraqi Islamic Party and granted an interview in which she said her kidnappers treated her very well and never threatened her.

Carroll explained those comments, too, in Saturday's statement.

"The party had promised me the interview would never be aired on television, and broke their word," Carroll wrote. "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."

She's a journalist. She interviews people. She knows that she was on the international news for weeks after her abduction. Then this: "[They] promised me the interview would never be aired..."? She sat down for an interview that she thought was going to be put on the back shelf of some closet, never to be seen? Does that make sense? When she knew that her release would also be international news?

After she was freed, she voluntarily (at least in this version) went to the Iraqi Islamic Party (definitely the first place I'd head after being freed by Islamic jihadists), and told them, again, how well she was treated?

On the original video, there are so many ways she could have telegraphed that she was being coerced. Remember that little British boy who was being held by Saddam just before the first Gulf War? Saddam was patting the boys head to show what a great loving guy he was, and the kid had no difficulty in showing us his true feelings about Saddam.

Jill Carroll looked absolutely relaxed and comfortable in her captivity video. If she's done with the journalism thing, she might want to give acting a shot. Her smiling, confident interview was apparently an Oscar caliber performance.

We could just give her some time so she can pick one story and then tell us about it, but I think her 15 minutes are up. There will be more important topics to discuss.

Posted by: special_guest at April 2, 2006 1:43 AM

Pong said

I did not read her reports, but writing for a Christian publication, would I be right to assume she was writing about the plight of Christians in Iraq?

She wrote for the Christian Science Monitor. I am not a Christian, but I like reading their news stories (csmonitor.com). I think they have better than average news coverage. I doubt that she was writing about the plight of Christians in Iraq. More likely it was the usual focus on the poor innocent moderate Moslems who were being oppressed by the U.S. occupation forces blawdy bla bla.

Here is an example of a report written by her. As you can see, it is well written. I think she feels genuine empathy with the Iraqi people and genuine respect for the Religion of Peace. Perhaps she honestly felt that her kidnappers had no choice but to take drastic steps like kidnapping journalists, because they were only a few desperate freedom fighters resisting the world's most powerful army.

Maybe someday we'll find out what she really thought, but it doesn't really matter; she had only a few lines in a minor part of a very long and complex opera.

Posted by: special_guest at April 2, 2006 3:19 AM

Special_guest,
Thank you for the link.
The article is OK. She is not bad, though I thought it was a bit boring.

Posted by: pong at April 2, 2006 4:09 AM

OK Jill, now that you know what it’s like to be treated as a tool of propaganda, it’s time to ask yourself why did you go to Iraq in the first place? The reason why people like Jill go to Iraq and the Gaza Strip is not out of love for these Arabs but because they themselves fell for Arab propaganda!

All these holier than thou westerners are representatives from a collective bunch of random non-governmental organizations (NGO’s) that go into these diverse Arabic locations in the first place due to falling hook, line and sinker based purely on propagandized reasons! In Iraq, it’s all about the ‘American occupation’ and in the Gaza Strip (and now also in the West Bank) it’s all about the ‘Israeli occupation’. The only occupation that is going on here is the ‘Islamized occupation’ that is trying to dupe the useful idiots of the world!

Want proof, here’s proof—take the Gaza Strip, the Islamized Arabs said that the problem was the Israeli occupation. But when there were Jewish settlements in the West Bank, the land flourished and Arabs were offered jobs! But the Islamized Arabs fought to shrug off the Jews, saying this land belongs to Allah and not the Jews. These Islamized Arabs dug massive underground networks under the Gaza-Egyptian border in order to smuggle weapons. Factories were set-up to make homemade rockets, small groups of terrorists kept on invading Jewish settlements and men, women, children and even pregnant women were murder in cold blood! When the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) responded to these attacks, then all the Arab propaganda went into full force! This propaganda claimed that it was just the Arabs that were trying to defend their homes and it’s these Zionist pigs that are financially and militarily backed by the U.S. who are the real terrorists!

So in the end, the Israelis had enough and pulled out unilaterally, there was no more occupation, no more Jewish settlements and what happen? The Arabs failed at being farmers; the land failed them just as it once did before when Jews didn’t have a state in what the world infamously calls this region ‘Palestine’. With the Jewish settlements gone, now all those jobs for the Arabs instantly disappeared. And yet the Islamized propaganda still claimed that the Palestinian Arabs were still no better off because the ‘Israeli occupation’ is still there! This westernized propaganda just focused its attention on the West Bank but Imams were telling their worshippers in the mosques that all of Palestine (the Jewish State) is under ‘Israeli occupation’! So as a result, that justified the Islamized Arabs to launch terrorist attacks into the region of Israel proper. So much for the truth, so much for the Israeli withdrawal, it’s all a form of twisted lies and revenge based on Muhammad’s teachings.

It’s these poor western suckers from these NGO’s that fall for this Islamized propaganda and that is the only reason why they flock to these regions. These NGO’s have their own political agenda and it’s anti-Jew and anti-American. I say anti-Jew opposed to anti-Israeli because most of these NGO’s are Christian based whose theology still blames the Jews for Jesus death! These NGO’s all hate Jews and despite what they say, it’s not about their criticism of the only democratic nation in the entire Middle East, it’s because it’s a Jewish State pure and simple! Proof, if it was just a simple matter of Arab versus Arab and all the Jews were exterminated, do you think any of these damn Christian NGO’s would care? No—but because it’s the Jews, when these Christian dominated NGO’s hear Islamized propaganda regarding the Jewish oppressors, these Christians aren’t really hearing the message of the propaganda! They are selectively hearing the word ‘Jew’ and then they go into action in order to defend these oppressed people against these Christ killers! Because if it wasn’t the Arabs, if it was a different race, let’s say for argument sake that it was an ancient line of Philistines; these Christian NGO’s would be doing exactly the same thing that they are now doing in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank!

The bias of these Christian NGO’s runs so deep that they become oblivious to Islamic propaganda. The proof is that if these NGO’s were truly listening to the Islamized message they wouldn’t be in that region in the first place! The bottom-line to the Islamized propaganda is to free all Palestine in the name of Allah, there is no room for Christians! But these Christian NGO’s don’t hear the real message, they selectively hear that a nation state of the Christ killers are the real enemies! And as I said, it wouldn’t matter if these people were Arab or even if they weren’t such as being modern-day Philistines. Either way these Christian NGO’s would be doing the exact same job in the exact same place, all that matter is that these NGO’s are giving comfort and support to people who are being oppressed by a nation of Christ killers!

And that’s why are the useful idiots are running around in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank because they are blinded by their theological hatred for the Jewish people. Their motivations have nothing and I say nothing to do with their love and respect for the Islamized Arabs. Because if that were true, they would have lost their self-respect years ago regarding their so-called ‘good works’ in these Arabicized regions. How can you not loose your love for an Islamized people when they employ honor killing of women, when women must shield their head of hair in case it arouses men, when teenagers can’t even hold hands together without being beaten up, when girls can’t be taught along with boys in the same classroom, I could go on ad nauseam.

But not only these issues, how can you as an outsider not loose your perspective on a people when you see debasement on a daily level. When crimes take place based on tribal rivalries and when people of the same culture are kidnapped, tortured and murdered; how can you not loose you self-respect for even wanting to help such a people. And then when they turn their culture around and kill people you know from your own NGO or kidnap them for some kind of financial and/or political gain, again how can you not loose your perspective for such a people? The only reason can be your blind hatred towards the Jews because if that weren’t so, why aren’t any of these things that I’ve mentioned made you sick to your stomach? And even better yet, why do you turn a blind eye to all the venomous anti-Semitism that these people are raised on from their early school years all they way up to the daily press propaganda they consume and the ranting the from Imams in the mosques?

I have absolutely no respect for these Christian NGO personnel because despite all the horrors that I’ve mentioned, these volunteers are still not turned off in giving their love and respect to these Islamized Arabs! So when they in turn get treated with kidnapping or torture or get killed, my simple basic human sympathy is not triggered because these people are not just innocent dupes that have fallen for Islamized propaganda. They are worse because despite seeing all the daily human depravity around them, these people’s hatred for the Jews is so strong that it can look the other way and still call these Islamized Arabs victims of Jewish oppression!

And the same argument goes for Iraq, these NGO volunteers hate America so much and their anger runs so deep that they become blinded by the human degradation that has become the daily norms in much of that country! The cry of these useful idiots is that all of these daily vices of kidnapping, robbing, stabbing, shooting, killing (and honor killing) and bombing are due to the American occupation! Now come on, talk about being blinded by stupidity, only a person with a pure unadulterated hatred towards to the United Stated can claim that all of Iraq’s social ills are because of the American occupation. The Arabs in Iraq share the exact same societal characteristics with the Arabs in the so-called region of Palestine; everything is blamed on the occupation of their most hated enemy. Why are these NGO’s not looking at the Arab societal structure as a whole and asking themselves the question of why are these Arabs regions so similar in nature regarding the use of violence?

The answer has to do with Arab civilization; they’ve never been good at cooperation and that’s a historical fact! The entire Arab tribal structure is based on hegemony, violence to achieve power, violence as the only tool to maintain or gain power, tribalism is the only means to stability, tribalism mixed with hegemony can only led to violent outcomes, women have always been repressed and outsiders have always been hated! So tell me how can I have any sympathy or respect of these western NGO’s who base their philosophy on their hatred of the Americans and/or Israelis. And it’s these NGO’s that feed their volunteers propaganda that imply all of the local Arab ills in the world are due to the American or Israeli occupation! If only the Americans and the Israelis would leave these regions of the world then peace, prosperity and love would reign over the Arabs—now tell me who is living in a fantasyland here?

Let me you, Arab society is what is and that is it’s always been drenched in violence! The only new strategy that has been thrown into the mix is modern-day propaganda. It’s this tool in which the Arab attempts to throw a monkey wrench into his excuse for his behavior. And the Arab tricks the gullible westerner in believing that the Arab’s enemy is the only reason behind the Arab’s sob story. If only the westerner would believe the Arab’s weeping tale and blame the Arab’s enemy, the Arab and his society would be vindicated! What utter crap—it’s people exactly like Jill Carroll that swallow this Arab propaganda and begin feeling superior in their support for the Arab while hating the Arab’s enemy with blinders on. One can only be blind if he/she sees the daily human depravity in the Arab societies of Iraq, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank and continues to blame the American or Israeli presence in those regions as the principal cause for the whole hosts of human degradation!

The true sick people in the world are not the Arabs because after all they don’t know any better. Their entire societal structure was written thousands of years ago, you can’t sudden break loose the bonds of past knowledge that has been ingrained on a culture for hundreds of generations and then suddenly change the radical thinking of how to operate the way of Arab life. No, the true sick people are these NGO’s that so hate Americans and/or Israelis (The Jews) that they will deliberately go out of their way to travel thousands of miles just to live among these people who claim they are being oppressed by the Americans or Israelis. And furthermore, it’s these NGO’s that fall prey to this Arab propaganda and become so brainwashed that they become oblivious to the ingrained pitfalls of the Arab society. These NGO volunteers walk around with blinders on and blame all the Arab societal ills on either the American or Israeli occupation!

It sickens me to no end and that’s why I have no sympathy to the travails of all the Jill Carroll’s of the world, for they are truly the useful idiots of our time! The best thing these NGO’s can do is grow a conscience and stop working in the political hot spots of the world that are filled to the brim with propaganda. Rather devote non-religious based human development resources to the underdeveloped and impoverished regions of this world that can use your aid. Stop being political pawns, stop giving aid and comfort to those who play the blame game in life. Arab societal ills don’t rise or fall based on an American or Israeli presence in the world! So stop believing such crap, stop aiding them, stop your utter blind hatred to Americans and/or Israelis (Jews) and starting making a positive impact in the world that isn’t so bogged down with political and/or religious propaganda.

If anyone knows the E-mail address of Jill Carroll or can pass this message on to her organization, please submit it so that this poor naïve and emotional mixed up girl can read this—it will do her some good!

Thanks.

Posted by: From Dave's Den at April 2, 2006 5:03 AM

Wonder how the mooslems feel about a little TAQUIYYA performed on them by an infidel????????

Yes lets turn the tables on them and use every resource known to mankind to defeat this vile ideology, I applaud Ms. Carroll and her deception, it really worked.

Know Islam, know lies and deception.

Posted by: chuck at April 2, 2006 8:26 AM

Very well written From Dave's Den. I have seen similar behavior of Christian NGO groups in Kashmir who seem utterly oblivious to the fact that they are being used by the Kashmiri muslims as propaganda tools.

Posted by: Razdan at April 2, 2006 8:33 AM

The grammar in that statement/interview was none too good considering she's a journalist. That made me think that she told to say these thngs.

Time now for the real Jill Carroll to stand up.

Posted by: Mark Alexander at April 2, 2006 9:28 AM

"Time now for the real Jill Carroll to stand up." ~ Mark Alexander

She already did, with her head covering firmly in place.

'From Dave's Den', that was an excellent post. "It sickens me to no end and that’s why I have no sympathy to the travails of all the Jill Carroll’s of the world, for they are truly the useful idiots of our time!" Same here. She'd have been pissing all over Winston Churchill if she were alive back in the 1930's.

For those of you who feel that she deserves some sort of praise, or even slack, for her statements, she put herself willingly into the position she bacame entangled in. In this war, there are two sides, and she's picked the wrong one, the anti-civilizational side. Screw her.

Posted by: Rick at April 2, 2006 10:35 AM

"I did not read her [Jill Carroll's] reports, but writing for a Christian publication, would I be right to assume she was writing about the plight of Christians in Iraq?"
-- from a posting above

That would be the last thing she would have taken an interest it.

Posted by: Hugh at April 2, 2006 11:40 AM

The Christian Science Monitor is not a Christian publication, since Christian Science is not a Christian Church. Remember how democratic were the People's Democracies? Christian Science is a system of faith-healing which is deeply at odds with Christian doctrine on several points, including the resurrection of the body.

Posted by: Paolo at April 2, 2006 2:56 PM

1) Now will the people who bashed her on a past thread - Alarmed Pig Farmer comes to mind - take their words back?

Hell no. The naivite roiling in this thread is discouraging. To be effective, she has to burrow back into the breast of the target.

Paolo, to take her final word, or, more probably, latest word, today over her word yesterday is a fantastic act. Why believe her now? Is the last statement necessarily the truth? Then yesterday she was a goddamn liar. Or, did she recover from her dose of Stockholm Syndrome overnight.

Has no one in here ever seen the Moslem flip-flop? The dissembling? The consciousless taquiyya?

No, this fine young Islam enthusiast was probably given a stern talk by Ibrahim Hooper and the gang.

Where she is most valuable to the Jihad is working with the required shred of credibility for the Communist Science Monitor from the Back Bay, or, eventually, from a future outposting back into Dar al Islam, where she's happiest, where she's among her own, on the front.

The FBI should put a tail on her, and release photographs of her slipping into and out of her Boston mosque just after dark.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at April 2, 2006 3:08 PM

Mr. Fitzgerald:

Dear Sir,

I must take umbrage with your post on Ms. Carroll. I object to the tone and mischaracterization therein as I perceive them. With your permission, I would like to be allowed to address them as I have noted them.

You refer to Ms. Carroll as a young “girl.” When you refer to her as such, our readers may be misled into assuming she is indeed a young girl. Nothing could further from the truth. In point of fact, Ms. Carroll has advanced past the age of 18 and 21, placing her past the age of majority. She is of sufficient age to drive, marry, enter into employment contracts, and drink adult beverages. Hence, I believe she is in every respect a young “woman.” You also state she “took it into her head to go off and cover reports in Iraq.” Which seems to indicate that for a mere reporter to go and cover one of the biggest stories on the planet is somehow a mere fit of whimsy. Perhaps the state of affairs of in-door plumbing in Kansas would be a more interesting topic for reporters to seek to cover. International affairs? Bah! Who needs them? Truth is best served by analyzing the state of trap plumbing under the sinks of our nations bathrooms.

Sir, need I remind you, this woman is no stripling named Hassan Farris? She is a full grown adult with all the resulting freedoms and responsibilities any woman holds thanks to the efforts of our suffragettes like Susan B. Anthony.

Second, I believe your arguments against her lack a certain logical consistency. First, you state that she went to Iraq “without any real understanding of how dangerous Iraq is.” Then you state, “She did know about the seizure and killing of other hostages.” Sir, which is it? Did she know about the dangers or did she not? These two contradictory statements of yours cannot be reconciled. However, it is possible that my powers of logical reasoning are flawed. Perhaps in the fullness of time it will all be revealed and made clear to me. I shall await such a day with eager anticipation.

You seem to hold an opposition to her attempting to learn Arabic and “learning about the area.” This seems to me to be a very novel position. I have never heard of a person condemning our reporters for attempting to improve their background knowledge of an area prior to their reporting on it. By this argument, should Mr. Spencer cease to study the Koran in order to gain wisdom about that which he reports? I think not. I think he is to be commended in the highest possible manner for his use of the sayings of the Koran and the sayings of Imams to explain current events. As for her lack of fluency in Arabic, many have said Arabic is one of the most difficult languages for an English speaking person to learn. I suspect that none but a true polyglot could achieve true fluency in a mere six months.

I suppose I could strive one day to be an editor and offer the following advice to a young reporter seeking guidance.

Young Reporter: Sir! I have an assignment to cover Iraq? What should I do to prepare myself?

Curmudgeonly Old Editor: Prepare yourself? Bah! What pernicious nonsense! If your knowledge of American popular culture like Britney Spears and the minutiae of her marriages and progeny haven’t prepared you for Iraq, nothing shall. Go now and trouble me no more with your pesterings and questionings!

You state that she should have known that she was endangering her own life and that of her interpreters. Sir, with all of the bad news coming out of Iraq, both real and exaggerated, I find it hard to believe that she had no idea that perhaps she might be assuming some sort of risk. We hear many reports of Jihadist and Americans deliberately targeting journalists. My contention is the first is fact and the second is nothing but fabricated balderdash. Nonetheless, the sheer mass of negative reporting undoubtedly let her realize that there was at least some slight chance of harm.

However, I don’t believe men and women of strong character have ever let the mere fact of physical peril be the only consideration. Mr. Fitzgerald, I have no doubt that both you and Mr. Spencer are the subjects of many ferverant wishes of death and ill will of Jihadist thugs. I am sure that some of them have made some attempt to find you and do you actual harm. Nonetheless, both you and Mr. Spencer have not let mere death threats deter you from pursuing what you perceive to be a worthy and noble cause. Why? Because you both have a sense of honor and share the belief that some things are worth pursing and exposing. And merely striving to choose the safest path is not necessarily the right path. Did not one of our founding fathers say that those who seek both security and liberty deserve neither, or words to that effect? Should we not be willing to believe that Ms. Carroll is filled with similar sentiments? I believe she has truly placed her life on the line, or to use the parlance of the young, “put her money where her mouth is.”

Finally, although this my be slightly off post, Mr. Fitzgerald, you said that as a whole, the reporters “cannot admit that it is at this point a colossal waste of men, money, (and) materiel” our being in Iraq. Sir, it is my strong belief that a majority of the MSM in point of fact DOES indeed believe that President Bush’s “war on terror” IS a colossal waste of men, money, and material, and many of them have not been shy about pointing out their belief, regardless of what the situation on the ground may or may not actually be.

In conclusion, my better half has just reviewed my letter. I have been informed that my post could be construed as being somewhat “snarky.” I immediately demanded that this bizarre teenage slang be explained to me. It was and my ill temper was not improved upon hearing it thus explained. It was pointed out that Mr. Fitzgerald’s last sentence; “In describing her only as a naif I am trying to be kind” could be similarly described as being “snarky.” I am not sure if this is true, but my irritation at hearing that wretched word has only increased. So I will conclude my letter with a reply to Mr. Fitzgerald and you, the audience can judge if I have ended this missive on a suitable “snarky” note. Mr. Fitzgerald, in describing your post as being logically confused, I am trying to be kind.

Your obedient servant,

TM

Posted by: TM at April 2, 2006 3:19 PM

-TM

1.) Chronological age does not excuse childish behavior. I'm gonna do what I want and go where I want, so nyah!

2.) Being aware of danger and understanding that you may become a victim of it are two different things. Many people can look at a dangerous situation and it actually doesn't enter their head that it can happen to them.

3.) Suffragettes like Susan B. Anthony aren't the ones to thank for your freedom or rights. Try the guys with the guns, like the ones in Iraq right now.

4.) I don't know if you or your "better half" have ever served in any of the armed forces, but take it from one who has, we have better things to do than look after someone who does not contribute to completion of the mission. Combat is dangerous enough just looking after one's self and one's comrades. Fools who think that because they're not wearing a uniform and can't protect themselves makes them off limits for enemy action just add additional complications to the lives of the soldiers there. If one is dumb enough to sit in the street, one forfeits the right to complain when run over.

Posted by: Eisenhund at April 2, 2006 5:35 PM

Exactly

Posted by: Eisenhund at April 2, 2006 7:10 PM

The link to an actual report by Carroll is interesting. I do think she manages to be very evenhanded about what she is reporting on.

Her post-release interview was embarrassing to watch. Yes she was used for propaganda purposes, but why all the obliging smiles and compliments for her captors? One can say what one is forced to say without appearing so enthusiastic about it. As someone else pointed out, that 8 year-old British boy who was captured showed more backbone.

Al

Posted by: Al Harbi at April 3, 2006 1:06 AM

Reply to above:

#1.

"First, you state that she went to Iraq “without any real understanding of how dangerous Iraq is.” Then you state, “She did know about the seizure and killing of other hostages.” Sir, which is it? Did she know about the dangers or did she not? These two contradictory statements of yours cannot be reconciled. However, it is possible that my powers of logical reasoning are flawed. Sir, which is it? Did she know about the dangers or did she not? These two contradictory statements of yours cannot be reconciled. However, it is possible that my powers of logical reasoning are flawed. Perhaps in the fullness of time it will all be revealed and made clear to me. I shall await such a day with eager anticipation."
-- from a posting above

"Which is it"?" It's both, for god's sake. The two points do not contradict one another, as you appear, in arch mock-confusion, to believe. She went off to Iraq originally not knowing exactly how dangerous Iraq was. That was her initial error. In the time she spent there, other things happened to not only confirm, but to make more obivious, that Iraq was becoming even more dangerous, in the time she was there. There have been a steady stream of civilians, Western and non-Iraqi non-Western, and Iraq, taken captive, held for political or financial ransom, or killed. So she was wrong initially to go, and even more wrong, once she discovered what was going on, to stay. And she was prompted to stay not because she was there as a witness to some truth that no one else was getting out, which might have justified such staying. She was not reporting, say, on the Nazi camps and was risking her life, like the Polish diplomat Jan Karski, to do so (he went, and reported to Anthony Eden, and Eden was indifferent). I see no contradiction there at all.

#2.

"You seem to hold an opposition [sic] to her attempting to learn Arabic and “learning about the area.” This seems to me to be a very novel position. I have never heard of a person condemning our reporters for attempting to improve their background knowledge of an area prior to their reporting on it. By this argument, should Mr. Spencer cease to study the Koran in order to gain wisdom about that which he reports? I think not. I think he is to be commended in the highest possible manner for his use of the sayings of the Koran and the sayings of Imams to explain current events."
-- from the same posting above

I don't "hold an opposition" -- by which I take it you mean "to be opposed" -- against young Ms. Carroll or anyone else learning a sufficient amount about the place that person intends to cover as a jouralist. The jouranlist covering Wall Street need not know the Black-Scholes theorem, but a little knowledge of bond convexity, historic rates of return, and all that mumbo-jumbo that helps to dignify the rest of the racket, and that makes Jack a rich but a very dull boy (just ask Jack's wife) is the minimum. Someone going off to Russia should not only know Russian but know the history of Russia and have some familiarity with Russian literature so as to be able to understand cultural allusions. Jill Carroll needed to do more than spend six months in Jordan to "prepare" for her self-imposed assignment. She was excited. It was a big story. She would do things differently. But did she? Did she report something that no one else managed to report? Did she get some special young-girl-living-in-the-midst-of-Iraqis perspective simply unheard-of? What she did was not enough, and it was part of her general naivete. I'm not against either naivete or risk-taking. Those who wish to intrepidly go off to the Amazon to report on the Yamomamo Indians, or into the Congo, who may risk only their own lives, are fine.

I "hold no opposition" [sic] to her "attempting to learn Arabic" and "to learn about the area." I wish she had learned more, because had she learned more of the first, so as to be fluent, she could have dispensed with the services of an interpreter and have risked only her own life, not his, and had she learned "more about the area" she would never have gone in.

No, the intrepidity here, the risk-taking, is not hers alone. She is also risking the lives of those she employs (that murdered interpreter). She is risking the lives, and certainly was a cause for anxious planning (who knows how many soldiers were diverted to seeking her) by American soldiers, who unlike her, had a war to conduct, and their own lives to protect, and not to risk unnecessarily.

Let me turn the tables and ask you something, as you in attempting to criticize me, asked a few questions (which I answered above):

What would you think of a young female reporter who today, April 1, 2006, took a plane to Jordan, planning to study the language, and the history of Iraq and the Middle East for six months, and then to go right into Baghdad, with the declared goal, as she put it to a reporter -- "I'm here to replace Jill Carroll." And if asked whether or not she was afraid, that would-be intrepid girl answered "No, of course not. Jill Carroll was let go and she's just fine. That's the worst thing that can happen to me."

Should that girl, that would-be Jill Carroll, be exempt from criticism? No. Should she be exempt from precisely the criticism I made? No. Well, when Jill Carroll went off to Iraq, things already were just that clear, as clear as they are today. And if they were not just as clear to Jill Carroll when she first arrived, she was not paying sufficient attention. And since things became all the more clear, and more stark, during the time she was there, long before she was actually kidnapped -- made clear by the reports of the kidnapping, the torment, and the deaths, of many others. She didn't seem to be worried. She was going to stay. Some might find that admirable. I don't. She was not the member of a large news organization, able to hire a large security force, staying largely put, and forced to endure Baghdad as a duty, and not as a way of earning journalistic spurs, and in doing so potentially risking the lives of soldiers sent to rescue her, and certainly using up the time and attention of those soldiers as they tried to find her.

I'm not impressed, and am disinclined to refrain from criticizing either Carroll or that imaginary successor, created for polemical and pedagogic purposes, above.

You, apparently, are.

Posted by: Hugh at April 3, 2006 1:12 AM

Fellow Freedom Lovers;
I'm late to the game but I back in. To all of you "Burqua" Jill supporters, I'm glad that you are so up beat about her release. I don't share your enthusiasm. As far as I'm concerned, the jury is still out. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm glad that she's free. But it not like she went over there to interview OUR troops. She was and may still be against the troops being over there. Her purpose was to tell the "otherside" of the story. In other words, to give sympathy and aid to the enemy through the power of the pen and paper.
A true American would never talk against his/her country for no amount of favor from the enemy. Under durest or not. I can remember an Air Force pilot that was shot down over Iraq during Desert Storm in 1989. He gave his name, rank, and serial number. But yet at the same time was blinking his eyes in Morse Code. Letting those that knew and understood Morse that he was still true red, white, and blue. Of course, this made the Sadman Insane forces mad, but it was the price for freedom to this Air Force pilot.
Now, I know that "Burqua" Jill isn't a service member, but all Americans should shsre that same commitment to God, Mom, and Country. Better ro die free than live on your knees. It becomes apparenet to me that journalists that don't share this kind of duty to OUR country should not be praised and honored in this manner. The Christian Monitor is smart in not letting her be interviewed at this time. Gives them more time to see where the mainstream media is leading the public debate. Wetting their finger and sticking ti in the air to see which way the public opinion winds are blowing. Plus to see if she is really converted to Islime or not. The last thing that they need is a journalist that is concieved as an enemy sympathizer. Bad for paper curculation.
She's got a lot of people fooled, but there are some of us that are still skeptical.
Blood, Sweat, Pain and Tears,
the Price of Freedom.

Posted by: Ironman Hondo at April 3, 2006 8:58 AM

Jill Carroll seems to have had "Stockholm Syndrome" before she was kidnapped. We shall see if the shock treatment of reality has helped her.

Posted by: pismopal at April 3, 2006 11:11 AM

I am reposting Alert's link to this article:
http://www3.cjad.com/content/cp_article.asp?id=/global_feeds/CanadianPress/WorldNews/w011806A.htm

In it, check out the date of the photo, Sept. 5,2005 and she is in full muslim garb. I understand she probably was required to wear it in order to get around somewhat unharrassed, but I know I wouldn't look THAT happy with the sweat-tent on.

Here's part of the article:
"A still photograph of Carroll from the videotape appeared on Al-Jazeera's website, carrying a logo reading The Revenge Brigade, a group that was not known from previous claims of responsibility of violence in Iraq.

On the tape, Carroll wears a white pullover, while her long, straight, brown hair is parted in the middle and pulled back from her face as she speaks into the camera.

Al-Jazeera would not tell The Associated Press how it received the tape, but the station issued its own statement calling for Carroll's release.

The Christian Science Monitor said Carroll arrived in Iraq in 2003 and began filing stories for the newspaper early last year.

The paper released a statement from her family pleading with her captors to set her free.

"Jill is a friend and sister to many Iraqis and has been dedicated to bringing the truth of the Iraq war to the world," it said. "We appeal for the speedy and safe return of our beloved daughter and sister."

Some questions:

Why did Al-Jazeera call for her release?
Why is the Christian Science Monitor sayinng she is "a friend and sister" to the Iraqi people? Is this sisterhood based on Christianity, humanity, or islam?
I'm no reporter....does it take almost 2 years to begin filing stories once you're in the country?(In Iraq in 2003 and filing stories beginning early last year-2005.)
She definitely knew of the danger reporters faced:(from article linked below)

"Carroll worked at the Wall Street Journal's Washington office in early 2002 when that paper's reporterDaniel Pearl was abducted and beheaded in Pakistan. "Many of her colleagues knew him and it was very emotional in the office,'' Jill told her father. "She had that memory in the back of her head while she was being threatened."

http://search.csmonitor.com/search_content/0403/p25s01-woiq.html

Like alot of folks, I'm waiting to see how this plays out.

Posted by: No_Mooselimbs at April 3, 2006 11:47 AM

A captive in her situation has no ability to resist orther than dying like the brave Italian who was murdered last year.

When the North Vietnamese Commununits regularly used POWs to make propoganda films against the US, even tough military officers found it hard to resist. That is... until a heroic POW named Jeremiah Denton made a film saying everything the communists wanted him to say but, at the same time, blinking his eyes in morse code spelling T.O.R.T.U.R.E. After that, the communist films had no more effect.

In the current situation, I'd doubt that Jill Carroll knew morse code or could do anything but say what she was commanded. Now that she is free, as long as she speaks the truth, she should not be criticized but welcomed home.

Posted by: Provoslavni at April 3, 2006 1:31 PM

To Mr. Fitzgerald:

Dear Sir,

Thank you for doing me the courtesy of pointing out what you perceive as a grammatical error on my part. It is through the keen eyes of our ever-vigilant editors and readers that we keep this great Republic of ours from slipping into public illiteracy. Allow me to do you the same courtesy of pointing out your grammatical errors in a similar fit of high-minded public service.

1. “In the time she spent there, other things happened to not only confirm, but to make more obivious, [sic] that Iraq was becoming even more dangerous, in the time she was there.”

I take it you meant to spell “obvious” in this sentence.

2. “There have been a steady stream of civilians, Western and non-Iraqi non-Western, and Iraq [sic], taken captive…”

I take it you meant “Iraqi” in this sentence. On the other hand, perhaps you meant to say “in Iraq” instead of your original choice of words.

3. “… learning a sufficient amount about the place that person intends to cover as a jouralist [sic].”

I believe the word you are endeavoring to spell here is “journalist.”

4. “The jouranlist [sic] covering Wall Street…”

Again, I believe the word you are endeavoring to spell here is “journalist”, although I must say your spelling here is different from your earlier version. Perhaps there is another meaning here that escapes me. I shall have to ponder this at a later date.

5. “Someone going off to Russia should not only know Russian but [sic] know the history of Russia…”

I believe you meant to say “but ALSO know the history of Russia…”

6. “Those who wish to intrepidly go off to the Amazon to report on the Yamomamo [sic] Indians…”

The tribe you are referring to is known as the “Yanomami” or the “Yanomamö” Indian tribe.

Sir, I must caution you to use their name with respect and courtesy, as they are a most fierce people. Were you to give offense to one, even inadvertently, I fear the consequences could be dire indeed. It would not be out of character for one of these fellows to remove immediately your liver from your torso and to then roast it on the tip of his spear, all-the-while in a gibberish speaking daze, no doubt under the psychedelic effects of their powdered Yopo beans.

7. Those who wish to intrepidly go off to the Amazon to report on the Yamomamo Indians, or into the Congo, who may risk only their own lives, [sic] are fine.”

Sir, I believe your use of a comma here is unnecessary. Please try to show the comma the respect it deserves. This noble bit of punctuation is not to be treated like some petty servant girl, used and abused at the whim of her arrogant master, and made to fulfill his any whim, no matter how frivolous or mendacious. Nothing more needs to be said about this.

Sir, I perceive in you a marked tendency to attempt to explain your position with a profuse mix of emotion and passion, mixed with an occasional fact. Your ill-wishers have sneered at your words, and called them mere “bloviating.” I strongly disagree with this characterization. These men are scurrilous dogs, fit only to bark and snap at the ankles of their betters. Bah! They cringe at the mere sight of a raised hand, or a posted rebuttal. I fear this is to be the lot of those of us who take it upon ourselves to educate and redeem our less well-versed brethren. In the following spirit of well meaning correction, allow me to offer you the following scripture.

Proverbs 4:11-13 -- "I guide you in the way of wisdom and lend you along straight paths. When you walk, your steps will not be hampered, when you run, you will not stumble. Hold on to instruction, do not let it go: guard it well, for it is your life."

So let us now continue with our lesson, keeping the above firmly in mind.

8. “In the time she spent there, other things happened to not only confirm [sic], but to make more obivious…”

This, Master Fitzgerald, could be construed as a split infinitive. Perhaps we should have used the following word order. “In the time she spent there, other things happened not only to confirm, but to make more obvious.” Alternatively, perhaps the following is more to your liking. “In the time she spent there, other things happened that not only confirmed, but made more obvious…” No mater. The choice Sir, is yours.

9. “There have been a steady stream [sic] of civilians…”

Mr. Fitzgerald, as a youth I was taught that the verb of a sentence must agree with the subject in number and person. Hence, I would fear to write as you have, as my knuckles are already throbbing in anticipation of the severe pounding the autocratic headmaster was always waiting to inflict with his stout wooden ruler. Nay, I would have either written “There has been a steady stream…” or “There have been steady streams…” My poor, much suffering knuckles would allow me no other choice.

10. “…by which I take it you mean [sic] "to be opposed"…”

I believe you should use a coma, as well as quotation marks to separate the quote from the rest of the sentence. Using this as guidance, your sentence would have been better crafted as follows: “by which I take it you mean, “to be opposed”…”

11. “And since things became all the more clear, and more stark,…”

My dear Mr. Fitzgerald, need I remind you of how we use one-syllable adjectives here in this great Republic of ours? We do not say gibberish such as “my dog is most good...” We say, “My dog is best...” Nor would we say, “My car is more big than…” We would say, “My car is bigger than…” The proper wordage, in your case, should have been “starker”, as opposed to “more stark.”

In closing, I would just like to say that editing your prose has been truly a pleasure. It is my only wish that others might see and take wisdom from our words. As it is our duty as gentlemen of means and letters to the wretched proletariats who may skulk about in this venue to guide them to a better view of the world and their betters.

Your obedient servant,

TM

Posted by: TM at April 3, 2006 9:28 PM

To Mr. Fitzgerald:

Dear Sir,

It has come to my attention that there is yet another error in your post to me. This is not a mere grammatical error on your part. Nay, this is more serious, and perhaps an expression of black-hearted treachery on your part. I refer to words you have placed in to my mouth. Sir, I and I alone am responsible for the words that come out of my mouth. At my age, I no longer take the simple joy in hearing myself own melodious words. If words must come out of my mouth, by Jehoshaphat, they will be accounted for!

I am of course referring to the quote you attributed to me. Immediately below is an accurate transcript of what you have attributed to me.
"First, you state that she went to Iraq “without any real understanding of how dangerous Iraq is.” Then you state, “She did know about the seizure and killing of other hostages.” Sir, which is it? Did she know about the dangers or did she not? These two contradictory statements of yours cannot be reconciled. However, it is possible that my powers of logical reasoning are flawed.

Sir, which is it? Did she know about the dangers or did she not? These two contradictory statements of yours cannot be reconciled.

However, it is possible that my powers of logical reasoning are flawed. Perhaps in the fullness of time it will all be revealed and made clear to me. I shall await such a day with eager anticipation."

Blast it Sir, those are not the words I posted to you! You have repeated two sentences of mine and I do not like that. I am not in the habit of repeating my refusals to every common vagrant who prostrates himself before me in the snow begging for alms and feigning deafness at my refusals. I waste no more words on them than is necessary, and I see no reason for you to insinuate that I like to go about repeating myself. Below you will find the words as I actually published them.

“First, you state that she went to Iraq “without any real understanding of how dangerous Iraq is.” Then you state, “She did know about the seizure and killing of other hostages.” Sir, which is it? Did she know about the dangers or did she not? These two contradictory statements of yours cannot be reconciled. However, it is possible that my powers of logical reasoning are flawed. Perhaps in the fullness of time it will all be revealed and made clear to me. I shall await such a day with eager anticipation.”

Sir, this is not a matter I should like to see repeated. I pay large sums of moneys to various barristers to ensure that my interests are protected and represented vigorously. I am already ill tempered when I am forced to look upon their sallow and pasty faces as they tug their forelocks whilst reporting to me. Bah! A pox upon them and their ilk.

Upon reflection, it occurs to me that perhaps I have been too hasty in laying responsibility for this debacle at your doorstep. Perhaps another person is at fault. Yes, no doubt that is the cause of all of this. Sir, I should like to recommend to you that you terminate that servant girl who is employed at your type-writing machine. She no doubt is the cause of the above-mentioned errors. It is difficult to hire reliable help these days. Such is the nature of the lower classes. No respect for their betters seems to be the attitude of the times.

However, I have it on good authority that there is a new machine that has been recently manufactured that removes much of the un-skilled labor that heretofore was the bane of much of the written word. This new computing machine is reputed to have the ability to do a “cut” and a “paste” with nary a sharp set of scissors or any gluey, viscous paste being required. I comprehend it naught myself, but many a clever young hireling of mine insists it to be true. Perhaps you could investigate this claim and report back to me. If it is indeed true, with no reek of paranormal balderdash, perhaps this could be a useful machine for the both of us to invest in.

Your obedient servant,

TM

Posted by: TM at April 3, 2006 9:48 PM

To Mr. Fitzgerald:

Dear Sir,

Recently, new information about you has come to my attention and it troubles me greatly. I have always known from your name that you were a papist. This has never bothered me greatly before, as I have always been willing to allow a man his superstitions, whatever they might be, and no matter how silly they appear to others. However, I have never taken you for a God-forsaken atheist. I am of course referring to that infamous post you recently made.

“"Which is it"?" It's both, for god's sake.”

Sir, by all that is Holy and Sacred; I can not abide a man who refers to our Creator in such a cavalier fashion. “God” is not some petty deity to be referred to in the lower-case. I am aware that some of you young pups like to go about shocking people with a calculated disrespect for authority and conventions. But this is really going too far.

Need I remind you that there are children out there who might stumble upon your ill-considered words? This is a publishing place, Sir, not some brothel or house of ill repute.

This has vexed me greatly.

Your obedient servant,

TM

Posted by: TM at April 3, 2006 9:51 PM

To Mr. Fitzgerald:

Dear Sir,

Recently there was rather unsettling hullabaloo in my household. Upon being so awakened, I demanded to know the reason for my being disturbed. It appears that certain delicate members of my household took offense at something they had read. Reluctantly, I let myself be drawn into what it was that offended them. It appeared that they were all a-twitter about some recent post about the fair sex and how someone advocated violence against women.

Well, as you can imagine, this brought me roaring to life, and I vowed to seek satisfaction against any low down common ner’do’well who would lift his hand against the fairer sex.

Upon hearing more of what was at hand, I discerned that it was you, Mr. Fitzgerald, that they had taken umbrage at. They then presented me with your very words.

“Had she been my child, I would have read her the riot act and forced her home.”

Sir, I must inform you that times have changed, and all persons, both common and well bred, are forbidden from forcing themselves upon women. Long gone are the times when a few swift blows could render even the most defiant female member of a household docile and submissive. Nay, in this new century of ours, society seems to have reached some sort of determination that a young woman who has reached the age of majority is now free to chart her own destiny and no longer has to seek the permission of her father to attend school, work as a secretary, or become betrothed to a young fellow.

This seemed somewhat unsettling to me, as I am sure you are likewise unsettled upon reading these words, but rest assured, it appears to be the law of our land. Most puzzling indeed. My barristers have indeed informed me that the local constabulary would no doubt come down hard upon you with the truncheon if they perceived you to be forcing a young woman home with blows and beatings. ‘Even if she was your daughter?’ I inquired. Yes, even if she was your daughter. Apparently, even handcuffs, ropes, or large shipping chests are no longer allowed to properly contain a daughter gone astray. Even sealing her in large crate with air holes would run you afoul of some minutiae of the law.

In conclusion, I can only say that if you wish to treat your daughter like a Musselman, you would be perhaps best served to move yourself and your progeny to a Moslem country with Moslem laws and customs. There you could be rest assured that you would be free to force your daughter to do whatever you so desired her to do. I have no doubt that an enterprising and willful young man like your-self could soon have his wives and daughters adapted to the local dress code and social mores of our trusted friends in the House of Saud very quickly.

Your obedient servant,

TM

Posted by: TM at April 3, 2006 9:57 PM

To Mr. Fitzgerald:

Dear Sir,

I have a couple of questions for you about your post.

You wrote the following:

“She went off to Iraq originally not knowing exactly how dangerous Iraq was. That was her initial error. In the time she spent there, other things happened to … confirm, but to make more obivious, that Iraq was becoming even more dangerous... So she was wrong initially to go, and even more wrong, once she discovered what was going on, to stay.”

Sir, I must confess, I am not able to follow how you craft your arguments. For instance, where did you come up with your original statement? The faculty of discerning another's thoughts through extrasensory means of communication is something most of us don’t have. So what lead you to make that first statement? Is it something you read in a dispatch of hers? Or is it just speculation on your part?

Next, you make the statement:

“So she was wrong initially to go…”

I’m sorry, I have missed that logical leap you just made. Is this just a pronouncement of yours? What makes this pronouncement any more authoritative than any other persons?

You latter wrote:

“The jouranlist covering Wall Street need not know the Black-Scholes theorem, but a little knowledge of bond convexity, historic rates of return, and all that mumbo-jumbo…”

Sir, here you write what a journalist should know, but do so by emphasizing more what he does NOT need to know. He does NOT need to know the Black-Scholes theorem. He needs a “little” knowledge of bond convexity, historic rates of return, etc.

Then you state what a reporter needs to know to cover Russia. However, here you seem to emphasize how much he DOES need to know. He must know Russian. Fluently, I presume. But not only Russian. He must also know the history of Russia, and have some familiarity with Russian literature. Well, this certainly is setting the bar high. I take it that this is to be the case for all foreign countries. Do you suppose that the U.S. has any such pool of reporters? I suppose certain countries such as England, Mexico, and France are places where we might have enough reporters with all of the prerequisites that we could cover them as you think we should.

But what about the other countries? Is a young reporter just starting out supposed to learn all you have proposed to cover, let us say, Laos? This reporter should spend several years learning all this? Then what? Is this reporter only to cover Laos for the rest of her career? If she wants to start covering Cambodia, must she start the whole process all over again? It would certainly be nice if all of our reporters possessed all of the skills you mention. But is it really feasible? Probably not.

If you disagree with the facts as I have presented them, please feel free to elaborate and explain your disagreement.

You said:

I wish she had learned more, because had she learned more of the first, so as to be fluent, she could have dispensed with the services of an interpreter and have risked only her own life, not his, and had she learned "more about the area" she would never have gone in.

I take it six months of trying to learn Arabic was not sufficient. How long should she have spent? One year? Two years? More? To get to the point of fluency is a very difficult task, especially for Arabic. Nonetheless, let us assume she was willing and able to spend however long it took to become fluent in one of the most difficult of languages for westerners to learn. She very possibly would have still had a native going with her. He wouldn’t have been called an interpreter. He would have probably been called a “guide.” A guide is someone who can help show the way by leading, directing, or advising you with all of the many personalities and local customs and politics. They can advise in just how thing in the local area work. The only way you can learn about that is to live in the area. She of course, by definition, wouldn’t have known these things.

I also note with interest that it appears that you are partially blaming her for her interpreters death. This is an interesting concept. I assume that he of course was fluent, and was very conversant with how dangerous Iraq was. In fact, he was probably as fluent in the language and as conversant with how dangerous Iraq could be as any man. Moreover, he probably was more aware of the dangers than Ms. Carroll was. And you or I, for that matter. Therefore, it appears to me that he decided to work with Ms. Carroll, knowing full well the dangers. He was probably willing to do it, due to whatever pay he was receiving. He probably had a family to feed. I would certainly be willing to take risks if I thought that it would ensure that I had money to feed my family. I doubt that Ms. Carroll somehow forced him to work for him. No, I think the most likely situation is that the interpreter decided that it was in his and his family’s best interest to work with Ms. Carroll. Very unfortunately, the risk he took turned out to be one that he paid the highest price for when he ran into those terrorists.

In addition, let me make it clear, I hold those terrorists responsible for his death and her kidnapping. No one else.

Finally, you wrote:

“Let me turn the tables and ask you something, as you in attempting to criticize me, asked a few questions (which I answered above):"

My reply is if you are going to ask me a few questions, then do so. However, I would prefer if you didn’t mix your own answers to your own questions up together in one mass as you have done so below.

“What would you think of a young female reporter who today, April 1, 2006, took a plane to Jordan, planning to study the language, and the history of Iraq and the Middle East for six months, and then to go right into Baghdad, with the declared goal, as she put it to a reporter -- "I'm here to replace Jill Carroll." And if asked whether or not she was afraid, that would-be intrepid girl answered "No, of course not. Jill Carroll was let go and she's just fine. That's the worst thing that can happen to me."
Should that girl, that would-be Jill Carroll, be exempt from criticism? No. Should she be exempt from precisely the criticism I made? No. Well, when Jill Carroll went off to Iraq, things already were just that clear, as clear as they are today. And if they were not just as clear to Jill Carroll when she first arrived, she was not paying sufficient attention. And since things became all the more clear, and more stark, during the time she was there, long before she was actually kidnapped -- made clear by the reports of the kidnapping, the torment, and the deaths, of many others. She didn't seem to be worried. She was going to stay. Some might find that admirable. I don't. She was not the member of a large news organization, able to hire a large security force, staying largely put, and forced to endure Baghdad as a duty, and not as a way of earning journalistic spurs, and in doing so potentially risking the lives of soldiers sent to rescue her, and certainly using up the time and attention of those soldiers as they tried to find her.”

Feel free to direct any question you want towards me, and I will endeavor to answer it to the best of my ability. But again, please separate your own answer from the question. Since you have already answered your own questions, I will leave them unmolested in their current state.

Your obedient servant,

TM

Posted by: TM at April 3, 2006 10:38 PM

Your complaints are as follows:

Typos:
1. "obivious" for "obvious"
2. "Iraq" for "Iraqi,"
3. "jouralist" for "journalist"
4. "jouranlist" for "journalist"

All trivial, and all to be explained by the fact that for many hours before I had been at a party, had had quite a lot of wine, and returned home to post, in about ten minutes flat, after 1 a.m. Under those circumstances, those typos hardly seem worth discussing.

Line-editing changes you think justified:

5. “Someone going off to Russia should not only know Russian but [sic] know the history of Russia…”

I believe you meant to say “but ALSO know the history of Russia…”

No, I didn't. The "also" is optional here. I preferred to keep it out. I can say aloud that sentence "Someoen going off to Russian should not only know Russian but know the history of Russia" and it sounds, and is, just fine.

Correction rejected.

6. “Those who wish to intrepidly go off to the Amazon to report on the Yamomamo [sic] Indians…”

Both are acceptable. "Yamomamo" was used more often earlier, as you can discover by googling both. You may wish to stop to read an article that contains the following: "no longer called 'Yamamamo the fierce people but simply "Yanamamo", for reasons explained by the author in the beginning of the book."

Fowler is full of alternative spellings where he suggests that one may be slightly out of date but preferable. I like "Yamamamo." You like "Yanamamo." De gustibus.

7."Those who wish to intrepidly go off to the Amazon to report on the Yamomamo Indians, or into the Congo, who may risk only their own lives, [sic] are fine.”

You take issue with the comma. That's the wrong thing with which to take issue. What is missing is the "and" before "who" -- "and who may risk only their own lives, are fine." ("fine" in the colloquial sense of okay, acceptable)

The asyndeton again reflects the speed at which tipsy fingers fly, not any real letting down of the Henry-Fowler side.

8. “In the time she spent there, other things happened to not only confirm [sic], but to make more obivious…”

As should be apparent by now, the speaking voice is used here to add immediacy, and because I write at one go, and seldom look back, and almost never correct, it is worth it to me to write as I would speak, with the occasonal minor solecism and the uncoiled anacolutha. I accept that had I given it any thought I would probably have moved "not only" before the "to," but not because of any firm rule on avoiding split infinitives. I don't always split infinitives. I agree with Fowler (see Modern English Usage, pp. 558-561) when he writes as follows:

SPLIT INFINITIVE. The English-speaking world may be divided into 1) those who neither know nor care what a split infinitive is; (2) those who do not know, but care very much; (3) those who know & condemn (4) those who know & approve & (5) those who know & distinguish.

I place myself in Group 5. Sometimes I split, sometimes I don't. I do not follow any style manual put out by the AP, The New York Times, or anyone else. I am much freer with my punctuation than most people allow themselves nowadays, but if you go back just a century, and even more back to the 18th century, you will find all kinds of permitted vivacities that officially would be banned today. What would "Tristram Shandy" be like without the dash--?

Strict restrictions on freedom to punctuate have, along with many other things, limited the idiosyncratic. The unsure will be quick to accept, and to mechanically apply, rules. Others will rebel, and refuse to comply when their meaning, their meaning in a sense beyond mere meaning, requires it of them.

On this score, you might want to read the essay by Nicholson Baker on punctuation, and also read the excellent book on the history of punctuation that came out about a decade ago. There is, I recall, a good review of that book by Christopher Ricks -- I suppose it's in the TLS.

Asyndeton I own up to -- it was a charge you failed to make. The one you did make, of excessive virgulosity, is one that I reject -- vide supra.

9. “There have been a steady stream [sic] of civilians…”

You would have the verb be in the singular, not the plural. I agree. Sometimes one has the choice but not, I think, here.

10. “…by which I take it you mean [sic] "to be opposed"…”

Your comment on this:

I believe you should use a coma, as well as quotation marks to separate the quote from the rest of the sentence. Using this as guidance, your sentence would have been better crafted as follows: “by which I take it you mean, “to be opposed”…”

I don't agree. The comma before the three-word quote is optional as far as I am concerned, and I do not wish to put a breathing-indicator there. Were I trying to score points based essentially on a few typos that merely reflect the slightly bibulous state, and middle-of-the-nightness, of the posting in which those typos occurred), like others here, I would point to someone possibly being in a coma as explaining this reachiing irritably after a correction that is not needed. But then I don't pick up on typos unless there is something more to be done with them. E.g., when someone scrambles the name "Mubarak" and calls him "Murbank" that is a bit more than a mere typo, and calls for a comment, which a few weeks ago I offered. To wit: "Murbank with a Maedeker?"

11.“And since things became all the more clear, and more stark..."

Your comment:

My dear Mr. Fitzgerald, need I remind you of how we use one-syllable adjectives here in this great Republic of ours? We do not say gibberish such as “my dog is most good...” We say, “My dog is best...” Nor would we say, “My car is more big than…” We would say, “My car is bigger than…” The proper wordage, in your case, should have been “starker”, as opposed to “more stark.”

No, you are wrong, and your attempt to explain things about the comparative by discussing the superlative, or in pointing out the obvious -- that there are certain comparatives that must be formed by the addition of a final "er" as "bigger" but not "more big," but that this rule does not always and everywhere apply.

There are many adjectives though "big" is not among them, where the comparative can be formed in two ways. I wrote "more stark" rather than "starker" because I wanted it to continue in the same grammatical vein as "more clear" early on. I notice you do not attack "more clear"? Why not? If, as you appear to think, "more stark" is impossible, why is not "more clear" impossible? But of course you must have subliminally realized that "more clear" is perfectly possible. I couldn't make it any clearer. I couldn't make it any more clear. Both are correct. "More stark" is also correct. It has a slightly different feel than "starker" and was meant to. One could go on. One could make further distinctions that would be of the starkest kind. Of the most stark kind. And leave someone unhappier, or more unhappy, than he was before. But I will refrain.

As to your eleven gotchas, four are clearly typos. One is a matter of taste, and my taste told me to leave out the "also" as the sentence didn't require it. My taste told me to spell "Yamamamo" the way I did, though I would, if I were writing about the Yamamamo Indians for an anthropological journal, and was told that nowadays one had to spell the word as "Yanamamo," or in another way, I would comply. On the other hand, up in Canada, when I am told I must not write "MicMac Indian" but rather "Miqma'q" -- I bristle, and will use that spelling only if I am being hyper-correct for the purposes of mockery.

That's as to six of the eleven.

#7 was a matter of identifying the wrong problem -- not the presence of a comma but the absence of an and. I rejected, as noted above, your proferred change, but did accept my own offer -- to add an and.

#8 is not wrong if you are a member of Fowler's Group #5. Euphony alone might warrant moving the words "not only" but the vivacity of the speaking voice is also worth preserving. Keeping those two words in place, or shifting them are both possiblities.

#9 is the one of your eleven attempts at correction that I accept. Thank you for pointing out to me that there should be, and there was not, a concordance between subject and verb.

#10 I reject.

#11 I reject.

Thank you again for #9.

As for the rest of your attempts, to be found in your subsequent postings -- those after the one with the eleven putative errors -- to inveigle me into a sparkling colloquy with you --- I can't oblige. Vita brevis etc. Sorry.

Posted by: Hugh at April 3, 2006 10:59 PM

Ahem, as an atheist, and as a (gasp) social liberal, and sometimes leftie (also sometimes rightie) and as a retired officer, Viet Nam vet (not just the era, but the theater of operations) as well as good healthy career as "sneaky pete" in the service of Sam (Uncle that is)..I don't trust the likes of Jill Carroll, Hijab Jill was all too happy in her chador and sending out reports as to how the poor Iraqi's were suffering (from their own people that is, a fact which doesn't seem to leak through in all of these reports (including the official ones).

She's double gamed it, just like the Saudi's.

Her Statement to the Islamic Society on release with her dressed in the latest fashionable chador and accepting the Qur'an (a sign that she is Muslim) is all I needed to see.

I'm with Hugh on this one, and indeed he was too kind.

Posted by: Nariz at April 4, 2006 1:10 AM

Jill Carroll is garbage. So are Muslims.

Period.

Read below and laugh about the Islamic Saracens sworn to destroy us.

Lost Verses of the Koran

Surah 115: The Pig

Bismillah:

The hurried flight of the Hegira had led the Muslims to a fertile oasis, where they were at last safe from their many enemies in Mecca.
Pausing, each thanked Allah the moon-god for their good fortune.
Assembling at a long table, they enjoyed rare delicacies brought by bare-breasted sirens whose faces were veiled. During the feast Muhammad sternly forbade his disciples to partake of pig flesh, while fondling the youthful breasts of a Nubian girl named Sheba.
Obeying the Prophet, the pilgrims partook of the succulent flesh of jackals and vultures, washing their food down with strong wine.
“I never dreamed I’d have to eat the loins of a jackal, let alone the bitter entrails of a cursed vulture,” observed a hungry pilgrim named Ahmed to a fellow Muslim, choking on the unpalatable morsels.
“Neither did I, but the Holy Prophet has ordered it,” grumbled another starving follower, almost heaving as he consumed greasy vulture flesh.
“A rancid pork chop would taste a hell of a lot better than this crap does,” retorted Ahmed.
“It’s an acquired taste brother, you’ll get used to it,” spoke up another, smiling with a mouthful of rotten teeth.
“I don’t think so,” said Ahmed, forcing down a burned jackal testicle.
An uncaring Muhammad, famished, greedily wolfed down roasted jackal in enjoyment, quaffing from an earthenware wine carafe on occasion, while choosing which of the sirens that would soon endure his favors.
The meal finished in the late afternoon, a drunken, lustful Muhammad initiated a sex orgy with the sirens, the debauched Holy Prophet, Allah speaking through him, declaring all earlier betrothals or marriages of the women he knew null and void.
The Muslims celebrated their good fortune, again thanking Allah for the bounty they had been blessed to receive.
Later, as Muhammad sat half-naked under a palm tree, masturbating to the thought of molesting little girls, Ahmed chanced by and remarked, "Oh great prophet, why does Allah say that we cannot dine on delicious porcine flesh?"
"Why?" asked Muhammad, closing his filthy, tattered, moth-eaten robe, "Because Allah's younger retarded cyclops brother is a pig, and Allah doesn't want us killing his holy kinfolk."
"Allah is a pig?" asked Ahmed, staring at Muhammad.
"Of course," replied the deranged Prophet, hallucinating thanks to ingesting strong hashish minutes earlier.
"That's ridiculous, why in hell do we worship pigs?" asked Ahmed, thinking his flight from Mecca may have been the result of heeding the words of a false prophet, possessed of a capricious desert demon who delighted in seeing them consume the flesh of vermin.
"Because they're better than we are," answered a smiling Muhammad, now fantasizing about raping little boys, "Look at me, I'm little more than a lecherous child molester, thief and murderer!"
"True, but pigs can't even talk!" exclaimed Ahmed, digging a heel into the sand.
"Allah can, he speaks to me in my dreams," retorted the wildly hallucinating Muhammad, barely able to focus on Ahmed, seeing him in double vision.
"You're a madman," declared a disgusted Ahmed, "I'm heading back to join the infidels in Mecca!"
"Who cares?" retorted Muhammad, slurring his words and breaking into riotous laughter.
Prophet Muhammad, opening his robe and again reaching for his flaccid sex organ, was too occupied with masturbating his building erection to reply further, while Ahmed disappeared behind a sand dune.
"What a stupid, perverted, licentious bastard," spat Ahmed, walking off, "Muhammad is crazier than a shithouse rat!"

Surah 116: The Pervert

Bismillah:

And it came to pass that Muhammad was growing ever hornier and more depraved: In a dream it was revealed by Allah that he was to molest a young girl named Ayesha.
Drunk on strong wine, the Prophet looked to a follower named Khalil and announced, “Allah has said I am to have sex on this day with a child; the virgin daughter of my brother in law Abu.”
“What?” asked a frowning Khalil, holding a wine bottle, taken back by the remark and turning to Muhammad.
“I am to know Abu’s daughter Ayesha,” declared Muhammad, a finger in the air, becoming visibly aroused at the thought having sex with her.
“She is but a little girl who plays with dolls; her womb does not yet weep, are you insane?” asked Khalil, knowing in his heart that the Prophet was little more than a pervert, thief, liar and murderer.
“Probably, but it is the will of Allah”, Muhammad said to himself, staggering off to the hovel of Ayesha.
“What a twisted devil the Prophet is – the will of Allah my ass, he’s just an evil, depraved monster who lusts after the flesh,” Khalil mumbled, putting the bottle to his parched lips.
An oblivious and uncaring Muhammad blundered down the street, weaving as he went, arriving at the hovel shortly thereafter.
Knocking on the door, Ayesha’s mother Umm appeared.
“What do you want Prophet?” she asked, staring at the debauched Muhammad, clad in a filthy tan robe covered in dust and wine stains, a lone flea crawling upon his moustache near his nostrils.
“Bismillah, I am here to take your daughter Ayesha in bed,” the Prophet answered, slurring his words.
“You licentious beast!” exclaimed the girl’s mother, “She is only six years old, if it is indeed the will of Allah, take me instead to satisfy your wanton depravity!”
“Taking you is not the will of Allah,” retorted Muhammad, the scent of wine heavy on his foul breath, “You are a wrinkled and faded flower without comeliness; be gone with your favors; I could never get a hard on at the likes of you.”
Enraged by her rebuff, Muhammad smote her upon the face with a backhand.
“That’s what one gets for disobeying the will of Allah,” declared Muhammad, his words punctuated by a loud belch, “Take me to Ayesha, that I may know her on this day!”
Obeying, Umm reluctantly led Muhammad to the room of Ayesha, opening the door.
“This perverted Prophet here wants to screw you,” announced Umm with a frown, Muhammad ogling the virgin child in double vision.
“But you knew my cousin Abdullah, younger brother of Ahmed not an hour ago,” replied a shocked Ayesha, dropping her doll, revolted by the sight of the filthy, lascivious pedophile Muhammad.
“Be that as it may, Allah has said I will also know you,” said Muhammad with an expectant smile, the gleam of lust in his eyes.
“Why me?” asked Ayesha, looking to the Prophet with trepidation.
“Because Allah has said it and I am horny, let us lay down, that I may know you,” ordered Muhammad as he removed his robe, Ayesha’s mother shaking her head in helpless disgust and closing the door.

Surah 117: The Murderer

Bismillah:

Muhammad and his followers enjoyed many days away from Mecca at the oasis, home of his oafish brother in law, Abu Bakr, who was also Muslim.
Dining on roast jackal, vultures and snakes, their strength was renewed by the bounty Allah the moon-god provided: plentiful food for their bellies and plentiful sirens for their carnal pleasure.
Khalil was upset that the Prophet was an evil lecherous pedophile who had known a little girl, so he went to the home of Ayesha to speak with her father, Abu the oaf.
He made his way to the hovel, and knocked on the door.
Ayesha’s mother opened the door, frowning as she beheld another of Prophet Muhammad’s followers.
“Is life not bad enough, what are you here for, to rape my daughter, me, or one of my sons?” she inquired with disdain.
“Indeed not woman, I must speak with your husband, not you,” said Khalil, who as a good Muslim, looked down upon women as little more than objects of pleasure, or dogs to be beaten into submission.
“My husband Abu is very drunk,” she related, lowering her gaze in respect.
Khalil entering the hovel, the oaf Abu appeared from a side room holding a wine bottle, and slurred, “What do want here, follower of the Prophet?”
“I must speak with you regarding your little daughter Ayesha,” answered Khalil.
“What about her?” asked Abu, blinking his eyes and trying to focus on the man.
“The Prophet came unto her in her room a fortnight ago; do you not know?” asked Khalil.
“He has come unto her many times since, she is his wife,” replied the unconcerned oaf.
“His wife you say - you permitted it?” asked Khalil, stunned by the revelation.
“Of course; he has come unto one of my nephews too, Muhammad is a pederast, it is the will of Allah,” declared a shrugging Abu.
“He’s raping our child you drunken bastard!” exclaimed a tearful Umm, looking to Khalil.
Abu smote her across the face, admonishing, “Take care woman, speak not ill of Prophet Muhammad, it is the will of Allah. The Prophet first knew Ayesha in a dream, when Gabriel showed her to him, uncovering her body for him to see.”
“That’s really sick, she’s only six years old,” observed Khalil.
“Better for the great Prophet to know her than one of the infidels,” declared a smiling Abu.
“Prophet my ass, Muhammad is a depraved monster possessed of a demon; how could permit such a thing, you are her father!” exclaimed Khalil in utter disgust.
“Yes I am, and the Prophet says I will know her too,” confessed Abu, contemplating the odd thought of having sex with his own daughter.
Umm burst into tears and sobbed, throwing herself to the floor upon hearing Abu’s repugnant words.
A fearful Khalil fled the hovel, not knowing what to think; realizing Muhammad and his brother in law Abu were wicked licentious perverts and vicious rapers of children, possessed of capricious and malevolent demons.
Later, Abu spoke with the Prophet while they entered a brothel together. He told him of the strange encounter with Khalil.
Khalil’s an idiot, he takes Islam much too seriously,” replied Muhammad, looking to his oafish brother in law.
“It is a bad omen Prophet, Khalil woefully disdains your marriage to Ayesha, and disdains that I am to know her too,” declared Abu, even he feeling deep down that such a liaison was distasteful, but knowing it was the unalterable will of Allah, the moon god.
“It is the will of Allah for you to know your daughter, did not Lot of Sodom know his daughters in the cave?” asked a slurring Muhammad, quite drunk, leaning against a wall to steady himself.
“Yes Prophet, he did,” answered Abu with firm resolve.
“Indeed, it was and is Allah’s will,” replied Muhammad, picking a flea from his beard and crushing it between his fingernails, “As for our problem, I will have a dream tonight, and Allah will order me to kill Khalil.”
“He will?” asked Abu, putting a hand to his chin in confusion, “But I thought the Perfect, Most Merciful Pig Allah never revealed his intentions until you had a dream.”
“No matter oaf, he is making his will known to me by making me drink strong wine on this day,” said a quickly lying Muhammad, holding up a bottle.
“Don’t you drink strong wine everyday?” asked Abu.
“Not as strong as this stuff,” replied the Prophet with a broad smile, “It has hashish oil in it; let us partake of a pair of this brothel’s women and enjoy wine together.”
As Muhammad and Abu descended into more revelry and debauchery, a troubled Khalil approached another of the Prophet’s followers, the one with rotten teeth. Telling him of his woes, he awaited the reply.
“Who cares what he does, have vulture and some wine,” said the man, tearing a leg from a roasted, maggot-ridden carcass and offering it to Khalil.
“You don’t care that Muhammad is a deranged pervert who has sex with little children?” asked Khalil, taking the leg.
“Hell no, I’m only here for the food, I was starving in the alleys of Mecca before I met Muhammad,” replied the rotten toothed man, grabbing more vulture flesh and a wine bottle.
“Oh,” answered a defeated Khalil, taking a bite from the leg and reaching for wine.
Late evening came, with Khalil and the other followers drunk and passed out in their tent.
Muhammad and Abu awoke at the brothel after midnight, rested and refreshed.
“What are we to do about Khalil?” asked Abu as they left via a side door, avoiding an encounter with the brothel’s madam, to whom they owed money.
“Leave that to me oaf,” answered the Prophet, holding up a hand, “In my dream Allah told me how to deal with him.”
Muhammad headed down the street and stealthily entered the tent of his followers, intent on taking Khalil’s life. Abu Bakr followed him through the entrance, looking about for possible witnesses.
Holding an oiled leather garrote, the smiling Prophet mercilessly strangled the sleeping Khalil, knowing in his heart that it was the will of Allah.
The helpless follower struggled defiantly as a determined Muhammad gritted his teeth and pulled the garrote tighter, crushing Khalil’s windpipe, the Prophet letting out foul gas from his posterior due to the exertion. The struggling ceased; he and Abu then quietly removed the body from the tent and carried it into the desert.