From her interview I couldn’t make up my mind if Stockholm syndrome or blackmail caused her response. She repeats portions of her statements over and over indicating it was rehearsed. I lean toward Stockholm syndrome but blackmail is a distinct possibility. She knows her co-workers could be attacked and it is equally possible her family stateside could have been threatened. I’m willing to bet her story will slowly come out. The truth has a way of coming to light, no one could be stupid enough to believe she was treated well. I’m afraid she will need years of therapy to recover from her “peaceful” treatment.

Posted by: Ronin at March 31, 2006 8:31 AM

Isn't this sheila one of the reporters in Iraq that is there because she sympathizes with the Mujahadeen? I thought I read that.

If so, then that's why she's alive, not because these brown eyed mullets are nice people.

Posted by: Unbridled at March 31, 2006 8:32 AM

You have to wonder what really went on behind closed doors in this case.

Posted by: Foehammer at March 31, 2006 8:33 AM

I think maybe Jill Carroll for got about the rather horrifying video of her crying. I found that video very disturbing. I thought they were going to kill her any moment at that point, but maybe they really did treat her well. Hey I have some wonderful beachfront property in Wyoming for sale.

Posted by: Infidel One at March 31, 2006 8:47 AM

If these so caled "holy warriors" are so Kind why doesnt she ask them about

All the
Rapes
Beheadings
assasinations
suicide bombings

etc etc etc.

The left becoming more obsolete each and every day..

www.jimgiosm.blogspot.com

Posted by: jingoist at March 31, 2006 8:49 AM

Unbridled:

I suspect you are right. It played really badly on the world stage when the jihaddists murdered (and butchered) Margaret Hassan, the Irish-born aid worker who was married to an Iraqi man.

As for Carroll's mental state, I'd suspect it's hanging by a rather slender thread. (Remember Patty Hearst joining her Symbionese Liberation Front kidnappers in a bit of bank-robbing?)

Posted by: waterdragon52 at March 31, 2006 8:50 AM

Frankly I wondered all along if she was really a "kidnap victim".Not unlike the "kidnapped" American/Muslim soldier who ended up in Lebanon. Several deadlines for Jill's execution came and went with nothing happening. Then she is suddenly freed just in time to spew propaganda to the press for the "mujahedeen".

Posted by: Roxane at March 31, 2006 8:50 AM

Dozy bint

Posted by: Interested at March 31, 2006 9:09 AM

Jill Carroll is not just any old dozy bint, she is a fully paid up member of the World League of Dozy Bints, headed up by Yvonne Ridley, the High Priestess of Stockholm Syndrome, who has gone completely potty.

As I write the American Secret Service are swarming over Blackburn and I have no doubt that the sniffer dogs will soon be sent in to the mosque where the US Secretary of State has been invited. Of course it will all be done under cover of darkness ... only the mosque committee will know ... astaghfirul'Allah!

In some homes there are young children who are being rehearsed and groomed to bow and scrape in front of Rice as they present her with posies of flowers! These parents should be reported for child abuse.

Blackburn is a hot spot for curry, and apparently the local infidels have named a side-dish Condoleezza Rice. "Shirk" or what?

Posted by: Interested at March 31, 2006 9:19 AM

If they were merciful and kind they would not have kidnapped you in the first place you daft bint!!!

Posted by: Daffersd at March 31, 2006 9:50 AM

Her comments do sound odd. I'm sure a lot is from being scared, set free and maybe her mind is a little warped at this time. Maybe when she gets back to the States she'll feel safer in opening up.

But what irks me, is , that in the interview she kept the get-up on. The hijab. She should have thrown that to the ground as soon as she got out of the car.

Posted by: freewoman at March 31, 2006 9:50 AM

Carroll's comment reminds me of what Sigmund Freud said when he was released by the Gestapo: "I highly reccommend the Gestapo to everyone."

Of course, he meant it ironically.

Posted by: scaramouoche at March 31, 2006 9:59 AM

Jill Carroll: "The Mujahedeen are merciful and kind that’s why I’m free and alive"

The Mujahedeen are not as altruistic as Ms. Carroll believes. She must have forgetten that she was kidnapped and cried on a taped recording that was broadcasted before an international audience.

Ms. Carroll could have easily been murdered and been just one more casuality among the many western civilians who have met a violent fate in Iraq.

For some reason her life was spared. Now she should take off her hijab and no longer have any sympathy for Islam.

Posted by: Johnathan at March 31, 2006 10:01 AM

Jill Carroll: "the Mujahedeen are merciful and kind that’s why I’m free and alive."

And how merciful were her Mujahedeen when they shot Allan Enwiyah, 32, her intepreter, twice in the head while in captivity?

I feel so sorry for Allan Enwiyah widow and his two young children and Allan's parents. Not a word of remembrance let alone kindness from Jill for her interpreter.

Posted by: Nicolei at March 31, 2006 10:13 AM

Remembering the Patty Hearst kidnapping by the Symbeinese liberation Army up in San Francisco. There was no question in my mind that Patty Hearst developed the Stockholm Syndrome based on threats and the way she was treated by her captures and yet the FBI ignored all that and still prosecuted her and got her convicted for something she did that helped her protect her family and her own life.

Posted by: Mackie at March 31, 2006 10:22 AM

I wouldn’t be surprised if she is pregnant, it might be why she was released. Don’t read into her statements, after 80 odd days she would have said anything they wanted her to say. When she gets someplace safer and with people she trusts, she will change her tune. I don’t hold much of a chance for her “conversion” to stick.

Posted by: Ronin at March 31, 2006 10:26 AM

Ronin - let's hope not, but look at Yvonne Ridley.

Posted by: Interested at March 31, 2006 10:32 AM

Interested, they are well practiced in brain washing. I’m hoping it can be reversed, for her sake.

Posted by: Ronin at March 31, 2006 10:39 AM

After she was kidnapped, I read everything online under her byline I could find. She really wasn't objectionable, didn't have an anti-US axe to grind, and didn't seem to have anything worse than a case of puppy-dog "the world is love" liberalism one might expect from an Amherst survivor, even if it was U-MASS. I'd be very leery about making any judgements on her behavior and comments right now, 80 days in captivity can make a mess of anyone.

Posted by: longtime lurker at March 31, 2006 10:51 AM

Hey everybody;
"Burqua" Jill Caroll's family is here in my hometown residing in one of our suburbs. And I know that she is going to come here. But here is the point-in-question, Will she be wearing that Muslim getup or will she be dress in the normal attire? Every time that we've seen her, she was wearing a burqua. And the way that the local news media here have been fawning about her and her family, it maybe an over looked issue.
But in the coming days, I hope that our government keeps a close eye on her. Stockholm or Helsinki Syndrome be damned, her loyalty to the United States is in question.
Unbridle is telling the truth about one thing, "Burqua" Jill was a mujahedeen sympathiser. Thus the main reason she was over there, just like the peace missionaries that were kidnapped. That organization based here in my hometown as well. (Sickening thought) other than the one missionary being found dead, these three were also released under myterious cercumstances! And like "Burqua" Jill, would not say anythng imflamatory towards their captors.
The fact that these individuals were all anti-troops in the first place make all of this suspect. It looks to me that the fix is in full effect.
Better keep an eye on all four of these so called "freed hostages." They seem too calm to me for someone taken and held against their will.
Curiouser and curiouser.

Posted by: Ironman Hondo at March 31, 2006 11:06 AM

I would like to introduce the dozy bint to my good friend from Iraq, whose brother and little boy were kidnapped and held for ransom. The father's last vision is that of watching his Muslim brethren slit the throat of his 4 year old boy, and then getting a bullet in his head.
The bint just oozes enthusiasm for these savages. I think that the next time we hear of an activist getting kidnapped, our attitude should be, forget about it.

Posted by: Jauhara Al-Kafirah at March 31, 2006 11:07 AM

Her ordeal excuses her from any responsibility for whatever she might say about her captors benevolence. She just went thru hell on earth.

However, we are not meeting *our* responsibility when we allow journalists, 'peace activists' (what a bunch of monkeys) and other assorted adventurers freedom to serve the propaganda purposes of our enemy and, by putting themselves in harms way, oblige our fellows to risk their lives in rescue missions. American policy has been one disaster after another in Iraq - surely the freedom of circulation we allow people who have no business there is in that category.

Posted by: sonnyboy at March 31, 2006 11:08 AM

I think Jill Carrol has secretly converted to Islam.The way she changes her hijabs to suit her dress indicate the possibilities.Soon we are going to hear the sermon of "Islam is most peaceful ,tolarant religion" from her.

Posted by: sofia at March 31, 2006 11:09 AM

I wouldn’t be surprised if she is pregnant

"Those whom one's right hands possess" per the Quran is permissible.

Oh yea and he must treat her well. She did say her captor treated her "VERY WELL".

So he was more than likely a very good muslim knowing all the fine print.

Posted by: Jack at March 31, 2006 11:12 AM

Another western woman may now turn into a Batwoman.

Posted by: Londoner at March 31, 2006 11:19 AM

The video was shot *before* she was released.

Posted by: Imli at March 31, 2006 11:27 AM

I agree with those who feel we should with-hold judgment. Let's not forget how the American embassy employees made statements opposing American meddling in Iranian affairs after they were taken hostages in 1979. They were all coerced.

Let's hear what she says when she gets home and then pass judgment.

Posted by: Cornelius at March 31, 2006 11:39 AM

Frankly I wondered all along if she was really a "kidnap victim".
Roxane

In the first video tape that was relased she was calm and almost lecturing. Then after her calm demeanor had been commented on (by TV talking heads)the next tape released she was hysterical and pleading.

Then of course there was the ever changing and eventually ignored deadline.

I have always been suspicious of her kidnapping too.

Posted by: Mr Ape Pig at March 31, 2006 11:59 AM

Cornelius;
We'll be watching. Her family is based in the Chicagoland area. And trust me, I know my hometown media. This will become a major, local and national news event. She's already the talk of the Chicagoland area! Her appearance and/or what she says, will be all the proof "We the People" need as far as her loyality to this country is concerned.

Posted by: Ironman Hondo at March 31, 2006 12:00 PM

I am now convinced that the American Christian "peace activisist," whose body was dumped into the streets of Baghdad, was tortured and murdered because he refused to convert to Islam, whereas Ms. Carroll and that female German "hostage" seem to be Islamophiles, maybe converts, and were spared.

Posted by: Ben-Hur at March 31, 2006 12:15 PM

You are a bunch of morons. She made those statements while being held hostage. You have to be foolish to automatically assume that she was speaking for herself. With the collective intelligence of the nitwits here, you should realize that the statements she makes while not being held hostage are more indicative of her feelings. Maybe even wait until she gets back to the US, out of the country where she was kidnapped and held for nearly two months.

Pathetic bunch of losers here.

Posted by: getaclue72 at March 31, 2006 12:32 PM

I'll bet she didn't convert. Once you get out of a stinkhole, I rather doubt you'd want to dip into it again.

Posted by: freewoman at March 31, 2006 12:40 PM

There were two videos. One on little green footballs before she was released and one shown to Iraq afterwords. Both appear to have propaganda for the terrorists. I think this represents a very public campaign in the Arab world discussing that she was respectful of Islam, wanted to learn, and 'progressive' political views . . . it was this pressure applied that worked. The Jordan times editorialized why she should be released(good dhimmi, bad dhimmi ect).

I think her views are junk. As for the burkha. Nice touch. Showing respect for Muslims. I've got not problem there, and I'm sure Muslims visiting or living in the US will discard their burkha to fit in here? Right? LOL.

Having said all that I'm sure most of us would say about anything in such a prolonged captivity. Even a short one. Tell the Jihadists what they want to here, smile for your Jihad Closeup and the take the last plane out of Baghdad. If she has indeed gone native, her family will plead to keep her off the tv. Again, my blame is for her idiot parents for letting a young Kaffir live in Jordan in the first place! Insane

Posted by: biorabbi at March 31, 2006 12:46 PM

The mercy and kindness this poor woman speaks of reflects completely mercy and kindness of Allah expressed again and again in the Qur'an.

The text has almost come to life.

A worthless Infidel, an Infidel woman, who accepts the hijab, who cowers with fear and respect for the rightful bearers of Allah's truth, has been treated kindly, that is, not beaten or killed, and spared.

Allah has shown restraint, and has given life to one who deserves nothing.

The merciful and compassionate...

Posted by: JTF at March 31, 2006 12:58 PM

Ahhh,,,,it wasn't allah that showed restraint. She was in the hands of the wingnuts. And who knows why they didn't kill her. If allah needed to take out someone, I'm sure if he was real, he could have done it himself. Like through a lightning bolt.

Posted by: freewoman at March 31, 2006 1:01 PM

"Several deadlines for Jill's execution came and went with nothing happening. Then she is suddenly freed just in time to spew propaganda to the press for the "mujahedeen"."

Posted above by Roxane

Your comment got me thinking. Several deadlines passed, and no ransom, no world outcry, no demanding from our Leftists to cut and run.

In addition I'm sure that they also knew of the events last week where the other Christian hostages were recovered by our military.

Did they cut and run? As in cut their losses?

I also agree with other posters above that we should reserve our judgements until she has her feet firmly on American soil. I'm reminded of the "confessions" of the American pilots captured during the Vietnam War. They were trained fighting men that were broken. This is a young "Sunshine-and-Lollipops" peace activist liberal that was fascinated with the ME culture.

Posted by: ShortBoard Surfer at March 31, 2006 1:29 PM

Bio Rabbi;
"Burqua" Jill's faked captivity was only 83 days. Compare that to the Iran hostages. It's apples and oranges. 83 days is not what I would call "prolonged." Especially compared to 2 1/2 years. The amount of time/days the American hostages in Iran spent in captivity.

Hey Get a Clue 72;

She made the statements while in "self imposed" captivity. Once again, I go back to the Iranian hostage crisis. The Americans in this situation did not turn on the United States for no reason what so ever. It could have meant an early release/end to the hostage crisis. But they remained true to the red,white,& blue. Even in light of the abysmal, domed to failure, rescue attempt by former "Milksop in Chief" Jimmy Carter.
Now, you can call me and anyone else that share this view whatever name you like. It still won't change the fact that this release was too thin in substance. I can't wait for her to get back to the States to see how she will act. To see what she'll about her captor(?) in the "Land of the Free, Home of the Brave." Will I be a moron that's wrong. Or will I be a moron that was right about "Burqua" Jill?
And if we're such "losers" on this website, why are you logged in?

Posted by: Ironman Hondo at March 31, 2006 1:34 PM

Ben Hur;
Good point!!

Posted by: Ironman Hondo at March 31, 2006 1:35 PM

It must be the 'Stockholm Syndrome' talking.

Posted by: pythagoras at March 31, 2006 1:44 PM

Ironman Hondo

What's a good link to follow the Chicagoland press? I'm from Pennsylvania.

Posted by: ShortBoard Surfer at March 31, 2006 1:49 PM

Dhimmitude is a mental disorder.

Posted by: daveconcerned at March 31, 2006 1:51 PM

Remember the following report?

"Carroll's former employers The Jordan Times published a Sunday editorial, stating: "The kidnappers who abducted her could not have chosen a more wrong target. True, Jill is a US citizen. But she is also more critical of US policies towards the Middle East than many Arabs… Jill has been from day one opposed to the war, to the invasion and occupation of Iraq."

There is a history of this type of odd behavior . . .remember the rabidly anti-war Sgrena.

Kidnapped by mujahedeen, the reporter, Giuliana Sgrena, also had favorable comments about her experience.

In a video, made just before her release, Sgrena said,

"I want to thank the Iraqi resistance for treating me well and respecting me. I was kidnapped only because these people, who are well prepared and well-bred, are determined to achieve their objective: that is freeing their country from the occupation."

Posted by: justamomof4 at March 31, 2006 1:57 PM

source: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1107AP_Iraq_Carroll.html

Friday, March 31, 2006 · Last updated 9:04 a.m. PT

Report: Carroll warned before release

By MARIAM FAM
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

BAGHDAD, Iraq -- Jill Carroll's kidnappers reportedly warned her before her release that she might be killed if she cooperated with the Americans or went to the Green Zone, saying it was infiltrated by insurgents.

The freelance writer for The Christian Science Monitor, who was freed by her captors Thursday and dropped off at a branch office of the Iraqi Islamic Party, was later escorted to the Green Zone by the U.S. military, the newspaper said Friday.

At first, she was reluctant to go, but a Monitor writer in Baghdad, Scott Peterson, convinced her it was safe, the newspaper said.

The Monitor quoted her family as saying that her kidnappers had warned her against talking to the Americans or going to the Green Zone. They told her it was "infiltrated by the mujahedeen," the newspaper said.

Her captors, calling themselves the Revenge Brigades, had demanded the release of all female detainees in Iraq by Feb. 26 and said Carroll would be killed otherwise.

In a video purportedly from her kidnappers that was posted on the Internet, her abductors said Carroll was released because "the American government met some of our demands by releasing some of our women from prison." The video was found on an Islamic Web site where such material has appeared before.

But U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad said Thursday there was no connection between the recent release of several female Iraqi detainees and Carroll's freedom.

"What we did before had no connection with Jill Carroll," Khalilzad said. "We still have a few female detainees - four - and that's all I can say on that."

The Monitor's editor, Richard Bergenheim, also said no money had been exchanged for Carroll's release. "We simply know she was dropped off at the Iraqi Islamic Party headquarters," he said.

Carroll, who was kidnapped Jan. 7 in Baghdad, said Thursday she was not harmed by her captors and added that she did not know why she was released.

Also on the Internet video, Carroll is shown answering questions, presumably from her captors, and saying that Iraqi insurgents were "only trying to defend their country ... to stop an illegal and dangerous and deadly occupation."

"So I think people need to understand in America how difficult life is here for the normal, average Iraqis ... how terrifying it is for most people to live here every day because of the occupation," she said on the video.

Bergenheim said Friday that Carroll's parents, who spoke to her about the video, told him it was "conducted under duress."

"What emerged was that they actually started filming this tape the night before and then there was a power outage. Jill had been told the questions, asked to translate them from Arabic into English," he told ABC's "Good Morning America."

"When you're making a video and having to recite certain things with three men with machine guns standing over you, you're probably going to say exactly what you're told to say," Bergenheim added.

In the video, she said her captors, whom she called the mujahedeen, had treated her very well - "like a guest" - and that she thought the "mujahedeen are the ones who will win in the end in this war."

"No matter what Americans try to say is happening here or try to do with all their weapons, they aren't going to be able to stay here, they're not going to be able to stop the mujahedeen," she said. "That's for sure."

She defended the Iraqi people, and highlighted their current struggle.

"People don't have electricity. They don't have water," she said. "Children don't have safe streets to walk in. Women and children are always in danger."

She also called on President Bush to send American troops home.

"He knows this war is wrong," she said. "He knows it was illegal from the very beginning. He knows that it was built on a mountain of lies. I think he needs to finally admit to the American people and make the troops go home.

"He needs to wake up," she said. "The people in America need to wake up and tell him what he's done here is wrong."

The U.S. Embassy spokeswoman in Baghdad declined to comment on the video, saying all queries regarding Carroll were being handled by her family and the Monitor.

Iraq's Interior Ministry said it had no information regarding Carroll's departure plans, which an Iraqi official said were being handled by the Americans.

Bergenheim said the 28-year-old Carroll is "emotionally fragile" after 82 days in captivity and will begin her journey home as soon as possible.

"Yesterday was way too soon. I think they're investigating whether she could leave today," he told NBC's "Today" show. "But her family wants to make sure that she's strong enough, emotionally and otherwise, to take this step."

Posted by: Imli at March 31, 2006 2:13 PM

I dont know about anyone else but her stilted delivery ,her repeat responses and general body language, to say nothing about the headgear remind me of one of those BRAINWASHED SECT MEMBERS.
sOMETHING IS DEFINITELY AMISS about this pretty little girl and it was amis before she was kidnapped -DEFINITELY NOT THE FULL SCHILLING.

Posted by: johnmac at March 31, 2006 2:44 PM

Ironman Hondo:

I wouldn't quite compare Jill Carroll's situation to the Iran hostages. So far as we know, she was held in isolation. The US embassy workers remained in a large group and had each other to turn to.

As for Hugh equally-bombastic immediately above, Ms. Carroll would be seen in a less suspect light if she didn't make her appearances following her release in full Muslim regalia and to be so gormless about how hideous life for Iraqis was prior to the removal of Saddam and who has been responsible for far more violence and destruction since April 9/03: the very ilk that held her captive for 83 days. Ditto for her silence on the murder of her translator when she was taken captive.

I have to suspect that her release may have come about from her captors' fear that they too would be caught up with by Coalition and Iraqi forces as was the case with the Swords of Righteousness who abandoned their remaining Christian Peacemaker Team captives.

Posted by: waterdragon52 at March 31, 2006 4:19 PM

I'm reserving judgement until she gets back in the States: Will the hijab come off? That would be a start.

Posted by: Shinoliite at March 31, 2006 4:25 PM

Hello, this is the first time I have ever posted to this site and for the most part agree with its purpose and goals. I however am finding all the Jill Carroll bashing to be a bit much. Yes, the video tape did look bad but anti-dhimmis that you are should know better then to bite Sunni Muslim propaganda so quickly. The video was made in a Sunni political party operated building (Islamic Party of Iraq) and this party most likely has ties to the same terrorist that kidnapped her. She (nor anyone I hope) would be so stupid as to say anything that might get her killed (don’t drink the cool aid etc….). So when they stuck a camera in her face and said talk...well she talked...told them what they wanted to hear...

Islam is wonderful
My Kidnappers did not hurt me
Etc

Remember she was dropped of at this place (not with the Americans and the only ones you can trust) and she was told if she spoke ill to these political people (aka the political jihad wing of the kidnappers) about her “experience” she gets a “dirt nap”. She also by now has a trust problem because remember who was she going to talk to the day she was kidnapped…..yep a Sunni politician who was absent when the interview was to take place. She was set up! Now maybe I am wrong and she is a Dhimmi but let’s give her some time to be debriefed and assured of her safety and THEN see what she has to say. If she spouts anti-American pro-jihad nonsense then you are right...but if not you have just savaged someone who was a victim of Islam and it makes me wonder who the real dhemmi is? To simply accept Islamic propaganda as some of you have really makes me worried......Remember that is why we lost the crusades!

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at March 31, 2006 5:07 PM

Absolutely deplorable and revolting that public opinion in the US can and will be influenced by such a twit...

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at March 31, 2006 5:08 PM

We lost the crusades?

Posted by: freewoman at March 31, 2006 5:14 PM

Many people seem to object to the comments she made in the video. I first found out about these comments when I went to a blog that had her comments only, which seemed offensive, to say the least. However, when I went to the original site, it appeared that she was still in captivity when she made these statements. Thus, to say anything other than what she said could have been dangerous to her. Below are the first several paragraphs that support the contention that she was not free of duress when she made her comments.

***start quote***
March 30, 2006 — ABC News has found a video on an insurgent Web site showing U.S. reporter Jill Carroll before she was released by her captors in Iraq. The circumstances surrounding the video are unclear and it is equally unclear whether Carroll was under duress during the taping.

The tape appears to have been made earlier today, before Carroll's captors released her, but the time of the taping has not yet been confirmed by ABC News.

Carroll, 28, had been held for three months by an Islamic jihadist group that refers to itself as the Revenge Brigade. The group had demanded that the United States release all Iraqi women from its prisons in exchange for Carroll's release.

In the video uncovered by ABC News, Carroll is shown being interviewed by an unknown person and refers to her imminent release.

***end quote***

If the above is true, and she was still in the hands of her kidnappers, I don't see how we can fault her for what she said.

Very respectfully,

TM

Here is the link to the ABC story.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=1787481&page=1

Posted by: TM at March 31, 2006 5:33 PM

"Remember she was dropped of at this place (not with the Americans and the only ones you can trust) and she was told if she spoke ill to these political people (aka the political jihad wing of the kidnappers) about her “experience” she gets a “dirt nap”. "

Good call,

The sooner she's out of there, the better. I hope she heals up. As long as she's in iraq, she is not safe.

Posted by: daveconcerned at March 31, 2006 6:21 PM

Remember that is why we lost the crusades!

FYI- We did not lose the crusades.

I find it interesting that we have so many first time posters coming out in defense of Jill Carroll.I think these first time posters should also keep in mind that under Islam there is no free thought or free expression.Muslims are given their opinion by the local Imam and those who disagree may be killed. In the US we have free speech and free thought, meaning we are free to believe or not believe Jill Carroll's story.Frankly I was not surprised that Jill Carroll was freed by her "captors" as I have been suspicious of her "kidnapping" from the beginning.

Posted by: Roxane at March 31, 2006 6:58 PM

Carroll was held captive for 3 months - just enough to thoroughly brainwash this woman. Of course she was already ripe for the pickin' with her Christian Science background.

(Christians and Christian Science are NOT one in the same)

Anyway - she probably has converted from one cult to another - and was coached on what to say, and what not to say by her captors. And perhaps they've threatened to kill both she AND her family if she doesn't follow their instructions, even if means lying about her experience.

"Jill, they killed your interpreter, what do you have to say about this henious crime?"

"Oh that - well - these are nice boys, and they treated ME really well. Can we talk about that instead?"....smile

Posted by: champ at March 31, 2006 7:07 PM

Seriously - her freaky smile was like rubbing salt on wounds. Anyone else want to wipe that smile off of her face?

Posted by: champ at March 31, 2006 7:11 PM

Such a poor victim you are, little Jihad Jill
oh boy you've had more than a very public thrill

A line of anxious, scowling, fidgeting Moslem Men
they made this little Islamophile's head spin

From beginnings a mere Arabist & Islam hobbyist
grew into a full-time brazen Mohammedan lobbyist

Learned to speak Marxism & Arabic in college
she went on to exploit her putative knowledge

For a rotten biased newspaper she did write
bemoaning America, which angrily she did smite

With weepy writings of such terrible frights
subtly aimed against freedom & human rights

But Jihad Jill, baby, a good fraud you ain't
cuz this sideshow put on you a stinking taint

Your release made Shepard Smith's voice quake
but we know that you are, like him, a total fake

No lecturing us now, mysterious lady burkha clad
for when you wake up, you'll pursue joe next fad

Take a page from the book of a pro, that pooper
the awful, egregious, regrettable Ibrahim Hooper

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at March 31, 2006 7:33 PM

At the time of the video did she know that her interpreter was murdered?

Posted by: Borg at March 31, 2006 7:35 PM

"Muslims are given their opinion by the local Imam and those who disagree may be killed."

Jill is in what country???...yep a muslim one. Proved my point!

You have the right to you opinion...no matter how flawed it is. Jill Carroll may have been foolish but to come up with wild stories without any facts sounds like something Hamas would say.

They freed her becuase they could score some politcal points with a dippy American media which always reports stories without context..

I.e. Her "interview" after her "release" was with the same people who took her but the American media reported at first without that info. It was if these were reporters from the west. Once in the good ole USA and only then will we find out.

Once again maybe you are right but then again you are making your judgments on the words of a muslim....

As for the Crusades and objectives (as noble a counter attack as they were from 1095-1291) we lost....get over it.

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at March 31, 2006 8:00 PM

Borg -

He was found dead at the time of Jill's abduction 3 months ago.

She wasn't really asked that question during her interview - I was simply using a little creative license.

Posted by: champ at March 31, 2006 8:00 PM

Hugh Bristic -

You must've missed the part about "no profanity" on Jihad Watch - hmmm? They will can you if you keep it up.

Posted by: champ at March 31, 2006 8:14 PM

Borg-

That is a good question. I do not know if she knew about the fate of her interpreter.

However, if she did, would it make a difference as to the comments she made in the interview? If they were still holding her prisoner, it seems that her comments were entirely justifiable as a way of ensuring her safety.

Alarmed Pig Farmer-

Your poem seems to indicate hostility towards Jill Carroll. What is the reason for your grievance with her?

Champ-

I am not familiar with the "freaky smile" that you are referring to. Do you have a link to this smile? I would appreciate if you could post it please. Also, in reference to what you wrote in your comments about hypothetical comments that Jill Carroll could make:

***
"Jill, they killed your interpreter, what do you have to say about this henious crime?"

"Oh that - well - these are nice boys, and they treated ME really well. Can we talk about that instead?"....smile
***

I am not sure what you are saying here. If she made this comment while she was still captive, well that would seem to be excusable, as she would say whatever she thought was necessary in order to save her life. If she were kidnapped, she would be under duress. If she made these comments after she was back in safety, and was no longer suffering from any sort of possible Stockholm syndrome, well, that would be a different matter entirely. Could you please elaborate on what you mean?

Roxane-

I am not following the argument you have made. You say there is no free thought or free expression. Whether that is true or false, it does not seem to have much relevance as to the comments Jill Carroll made while under duress in captivity. She could have been held hostage by Liberal Free Thinkers, or any other sort of intellectual group, but if they had guns, and told her to say something, it would be understandable for her to comply.

Next, you mention that we as Americans are free to believe or not believe her story. Correct you are in this matter, and many thanks to God that we do have this freedom. You then say that you have been "suspicious of her "kidnapping" from the beginning." Could you please explain what has made you suspicious of this kidnapping?

Very respectfully,

TM

Posted by: TM at March 31, 2006 8:21 PM

Hi TM -

I was making a joke - that's all - so please forgive my attempt at sarcasm. And they never really asked Jill that question; I was simply drawing a contrast between the fact that her Iraqi interpreter, Allan Enwijah, who was murdered at the time of her abduction; and all the "nice things" she had to say about her captors.

Of course they weren't "nice" to her - the poor woman HAD to say those things - everyone knows that. I was just making a silly satire out of a very serious situation. So I apologize if I've offended you.

Peace to you.

Posted by: champ at March 31, 2006 8:41 PM

and about the smile - again - my attempt at being funny. Guess I wasn't :D

Posted by: champ at March 31, 2006 8:42 PM

I posted before Hijab Jill is a phoney, and attention seeker and in cahoots with her kidnappers, that she can speak so kindly of them, after they shot her translator,drive, assistant bespeaks her real motives.

I saw her on an Arab TV station, posing quietly in front of a nice person carpet, adorned in Hijab, and now she wears the Hijab everywhere, a senior official of the Iraqi Governing Council presented her with a Qur'an, which she received with a smile on her face.. you Jihad Watchers really should lose Cable and pick up Dishnetwork or Direct TV and watch Mosaic. news from the Mid east..it is a rip and you can get a real glimpse inside the mind of the Muslim, their hyperbole,and their propaganda.

She is so dismissive of her captors, that it makes the stomach wrench, and I do not at all believe her story.

I echo the sentiments of that blog poster, except that I could have cared less that she would be release, I smelled a skunk at the outset.. and frankly any of those people kidnapped, asked for it.. They shouldn't be in Iraq in the first place, it is not a safe zone.

I did my tour in Viet Nam, even lived with the Viet Namese and walked amongst them unworried and unmolested...There were Viet Namese who appreciated us and our presence, but those that didn't were driven by political ideology, not an exclusivist religious ideology. Islam not only devalues the other, it dehumanizes and demonizes them, exactly what Muslims accuse the west, the Christians and Jews of doing ...it is called projection.

Jill was released because she said the Shahada, and spent four months being indoctrinated into Islam..she went from being a mere sympathizer to living in the belly of and becoming one with the beast.

She was released because like Susan Osthoff she is a disciple of Muhammad.

Margaret Hassan, on the other hand, was probably killed by, or with the help and consent of her husband. She was already Arabized a full Muslim,

Posted by: Nariz at March 31, 2006 8:47 PM

You then say that you have been "suspicious of her "kidnapping" from the beginning." Could you please explain what has made you suspicious of this kidnapping?

I mean her "kidnapping" may be similar to that of the Muslim/American soldier who was "kidnapped" in Iraq and later turned up in Lebanon.If you recall he was shown on Arab television blindfolded with a sword over his head and threatened with death. Then somehow he was released unharmed and turned up in Lebanon. Upon further investigation by the US military his "kidnapping" turned out to be a hoax.This soldier faces courtmartial and has fled the US.

Posted by: Roxane at March 31, 2006 8:50 PM

Alarmed Pig Farmer-

Your poem seems to indicate hostility towards Jill Carroll. What is the reason for your grievance with her?

I am hostile to anybody who would pull such a stunt on behalf of evil. It was apparent from the outset that this was a political scam, reeks of Tawana Brawley and the Reverend Al Sharpton.

Jihad Jill is an ideology-skank. She is the progeny of a rotten ideology, globo-socialism, that not only hates freedom, individiualism, and personal responsibility, but fervidly works to undermine these precious foundations of civilization.

PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH

The only question left from the Jihad Jill affair --- and its great publicity success on behalf of Islam --- is whether she's (and others like her) are that good at agitprop acting, or is it the eager complicity of our so-called journalists that is defeating us.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at March 31, 2006 9:01 PM

If her second video, the one where she was pleading and crying, was faked then she should go to Hollywood. I was upset about it for a long time and couldn't get it out of my thoughts. If she wasn't treated badly in any way what was that about? Her third video was a harsher tone and I felt, because of her clothes that she could have changed, but mostly I think she did what she had to do to survive. I will wait to see how she is once she is on safe soil.

Margaret Hassan was not dressed that way, maybe that is why she was killed? The outfit worn by Miss Carroll was extremely decorative, not the ususal black that is seen on most women. Could it be that one of the captors wives donated a ceremonial outfit for the video? To make it look good. Like the unusual backdrop. Another thing not seen before. Could it be that one of the captors was infatuated with her? Or being nice to turn her to them? One of her pre-capture articles was about how uneasy she was being there. It seems she was laid off from a job at the Washington Post and took this as a niave/risky way of making good in the journalism world. I am still not sure if she knew the interpretor was killed. He may have been killed after she was taken away. Are women routinely kidnapped? If she traveled covered, thinking she would be unseen, how did the kidnappers know about her? The politician or the hotel people betrayed her. Or both. That hotel had other people kidnapped before.

Many are skeptical. I will wait for evidence. A co-operative debriefing will go a long way. As a journalist she will surely let her impressions be known along with the facts of the story. Unless her family has been threatened. After all, the enemy is all around, not just in Iraq. But no matter the threats, the scarf can surely be tossed. I'm still glad she is free. Unless she takes up their cause with a pen or a gun. Or starts hugging Cindy Sheehan in photo ops.

Posted by: Borg at March 31, 2006 9:38 PM

Borg -

Well - the news story I found said his body was found at the time of her abduction. Indicating to me that she must've seen him killed. But maybe you're right - perhaps she had no knowledge at the time she was kidnapped.

I share your theory that her family may be threatened - that wouldn't surprise me at all.

Posted by: champ at March 31, 2006 9:57 PM

Body found at the time of her abduction could just mean that it wasn't found days later. You just never know. Most journalists aren't exact in details like that

Posted by: Borg at March 31, 2006 10:04 PM

good point!

Posted by: champ at March 31, 2006 10:11 PM

Jill Carroll maybe many things: leftwing, foolish, and more but she is the victim until proven otherwise and stated in her own words by her free will in the land her birth. You see in America we don't blame the victim of rape but instead the rapist which some of you patriots seem to have forgotten. You’re angry because she did not martyr herself by singing the national anthem in their faces and thus have her head surgically removed. I wonder how some of you would have behaved in a similar situation and worry not it is only a matter of time before followers of that mad faith do the same in this land. Would you be so brave! You want a martyr not a victim! So you do as Muslims have done for centuries you kill the victim because she has dishonored us because if she was a “true follower” she should have fell upon her sword rather then be “used” by her captors.

Perhaps an honor killing of Jill Carroll would make all these patriots happy!!!

Yes noon by ye old hanging tree. Her crime is she was only being a foolish American who thought she could understand the "religion of peace" and who her president (a man I voted for and will regret for the rest of my life) has the same blissful view acted upon those foolish ideals. She was wrong and is that not punishment enough.

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at March 31, 2006 10:11 PM

TMI omvi!!

Posted by: champ at March 31, 2006 10:37 PM

I remember the two young Christian women who were sentenced to death by the Taliban for showing a Christmas video to Muslim children.The women were imprisoned and eventually freed by the American military after the US invaded the country.Rather then appearing in Muslim attire these two women ditched the skanky hijabs for their press conference after they were release. Instead of praising the Taliban who had imprisoned them and sentenced them to death they thanked the US military for saving them.

Posted by: Roxane at March 31, 2006 10:39 PM

The post above is an attempt to shock and insult us, however it just doesn't make sense. Did you use all your nasty words omvi?

Posted by: Carolyn2 at March 31, 2006 10:39 PM

Roxane ~ they were in military care at the start of the war before it became widely known just how dangerous the average Mo followers could become. The recent video was made while still in Iraqi control. Maybe she was afraid they would simply turn her back over to her captors? After all she didn't know if they were legitimate people yet that she could trust. Her speech was full of their words. Not her words. Lets hear her in a few days.

Posted by: Borg at March 31, 2006 11:00 PM

omvi~ haven't you been here long enough to know better.

Posted by: Borg at March 31, 2006 11:02 PM

She goes to a MUSLIM country during a war/ "sectarian conflict" while working for the CHRISTIAN Science Monitor -and doesn't expect trouble?

She cries hysterically on a video - apparently under threat of death- and is now released without explanation.

Something about this entire episode is as dubious as Bill Clinton's ignorant anti-Western condemnation of the Danish Mo cartoons on a speaking tour of the Muslim zone of influence.

Termites, gnawing quietly at the foundation of our civilization.

One, an ex-president. The other, a "journalist".

The truth of her circumstances is only certain to become more bizarre as the facts slip out..

I can only hope she emigrates to a Muslim country.

They need minds like her's.

Putty.

Posted by: profitsbeard at March 31, 2006 11:05 PM

Well I think this puts an end to this story for all those who are sane...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12100278/

Welcome home Jill! Next time be a little smarter!

God Bless the USA!!!!

Thank You and Good Night! Don't let the Jihad bugs bite!

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at March 31, 2006 11:43 PM

The bottomline question is, why DID they release her? Something definitely smells fishy here, but it has nothing to do with Omvi's gross post above.

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at April 1, 2006 12:46 AM

What the hell is she doing working as a journalist with English like that? It's deplorable! Sometimes she didn't seem able to conjugate verbs!

Moreover, if she really believes half of what she's saying, she's suffering from a severe bout of Stockholm Syndrome, and we will soon be hearing news that she's 'reverted' to the cult of Islam!

Posted by: Mark Alexander at April 1, 2006 6:22 AM

Nariz:

Jill was released because she said the Shahada, and spent four months being indoctrinated into Islam..she went from being a mere sympathizer to living in the belly of and becoming one with the beast.

She was released because like Susan Osthoff she is a disciple of Muhammad.

Is this a fact? Or is this surmise? I haven't heard of her actual 'reversion' on this side of the Pond.

Posted by: Mark Alexander at April 1, 2006 6:30 AM

Update and pictures from Fox News of Carroll arriving in Germany:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,190162,00.html

At least the hijab has gone away; I guess we'll see about the indoctrination over the coming days.

Posted by: Shinoliite at April 1, 2006 7:24 AM

Hey Hugh -

You may want to delete an above post by omvi, as I think she mistook JW for one of her nasty 'adult' websites.

Grow up omvi!

Posted by: champ at April 1, 2006 1:21 PM

Oops!

Never mind - I see it's been removed already!

Posted by: champ at April 1, 2006 1:26 PM

Short Board Surfer;
Go to either
www.chicagosuntimes.com
www.chicagotribune.com or
FOXnewschicago.com
Just keep watching these sites, you'll see all things Chicago including "Burqua" Jill.
Just for G.P. "Burqua" Jill's mother lives in Evanston, Illinois a northern suburb of Chicago.
Also the home of the ultra liberal institution of higher ultra liberal learning, Northwestern University!!! Oprah (Okra) Winfrey was once a feature honorary instructor here. Of a communication/journalism class.
Go figure.

Posted by: Ironman Hondo at April 1, 2006 3:55 PM

I think I should throw some money on the table in Las Vages or something....

The REAL words of Jill Carroll!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,190162,00.html

Shame on all those who just accepted those videos at face value from a Muslim press that lies and an American press too stupid to investigate furthur (CNN, MSNBC, FOX etc). We will loose this war if the people who want to fight Islam falls into such traps.

Some where Lincoln would say something profound now about "A House Divided etc....."

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at April 1, 2006 5:23 PM

That was Great - thanks for posting that Fox News link. I just heard a sound bite on the radio where Carroll was stated as saying, "In fact - they threatened me many times."

Big surprise!

Posted by: champ at April 1, 2006 6:09 PM

I hate to burst your bubble, Sandmonkey (cool site BTW). Jill Carroll was under duress when making those statements. Here is a link to prove my point.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&u=/ap/20060402/ap_on_re_eu/carroll_25

Remember, you can force anyone to say anything but you cannot force them to believe. Islam has never understood this point.

Posted by: Johnny Cash at April 1, 2006 10:39 PM

To whom it may concern:

It appears that the comments made by Jill Carroll were made while she was under duress. Thus, I don't think anyone of reasonable moral fortitude can hold her responsible for acting the way anyone of us would have probably acted under similar circumstances.

And it appears that she has also repudiated the comments she made while under duress. Extra kudos to Jill for surviving a very arduous situation and returning home with honor. My hat is off to you Jill.

My hat is also off to those brave men of the Iraqi and British forces who rescued the Christian Peace Keepers recently too.

Mr. Robert Spencer, now that this new information about Jill has come to light, I hope you plan on posting it on your website as well. I think Jill deserves that much. She certainly doesn’t seem to be acting like a craven dhimmi.

To everyone on this site: I have the greatest appreciation for this site and what Mr. Spencer is trying to do here. I read this site every day. It has added immeasurably to my understanding of Dhimmitude and Jihadist aggression. However, I would urge all of you to please reflect on your comments before you post them. It does not advance our cause of defending the United States, the West, and freedom everywhere when we post things that make us look less than flattering.

For those who commented in a reasoned, rational respectful way, I thank and salute you. For those you who posted in a way that could be interpreted in a less flattering way, let me state that I understand your passions. The news and realities that we see and read about every day can cause any one of us to react in an emotional way. But it behooves us to always remember that this is a public forum and everything we say here will be what we are held accountable for. Please make sure that what we post here will not be held against us. Please try to take the moral high ground. It will serve us all better in the end.

Mr. Robert Spencer, let me conclude that I hold you in very high regard. I have bought, read, and distributed your books. I do not want to come across as some on who is determined to attack and hector you. God willing, I would love to hear you speak some day.

Very respectfully,

TM

Posted by: TM at April 2, 2006 10:57 AM

"Mr. Robert Spencer, now that this new information about Jill has come to light, I hope you plan on posting it on your website as well."

And a deafening silence from Mr. Spencer.

I, too, think Mr. Spencer provides a valuable service and probably risks his life by publishing this blog. For that, I admire him and am grateful.

However, I have of late lost a great deal of respect for him. It is very important to be sure the stories you publish are accurate. This is not the first instance where Mr. Spencer has published inflammatory stories before sufficiently verifying them. The story about the little boy whose arm was run over by a truck purportedly for stealing comes to mind. There are more than enough accurate and well-confirmed stories of jihadi violence and lamentable dhimmitude to need to promote stories that are questionable.

Also, I was surprised that my previous post was deleted, assumedly for profanity (though that is debatable). I regret that I was not more tasteful in my disdain. However, often, there are posts in these forums which are far more inflammatory and hateful (not to mention paranoid) than what I posted. Many of these are not deleted. This makes Mr. Spencer's claims that he fairly moderates these forums and does not endorse the the more hateful rhetoric that appears here questionable.

Any reasonable person should be concerned by the threat posed by Islam-inspired violence and the ignorance and pandering we see in response to it. Therefore, it is counterproductive to paint the danger in terms of liberal/conservative dichotomies and to ignore the hateful, jingoistic, and counterproductive responses to it often seen in these forums.

Posted by: Hugh Bristic at April 3, 2006 9:44 PM

Dear TM, Hugh Bristic, and anyone else who would like to accuse me of rushing to judgment:

You are rushing to judgment. The corrected Carroll story was posted here several days ago.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/010857.php

It might be wise of you to read the whole site before you assume that something isn't here.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at April 3, 2006 11:47 PM

By the way, Hugh Bristic:

I never claimed to "fairly moderate" these forums. I don't know where you're getting your information, but you seem to be as careless about this as about the Carroll story and about the amputation photos, which I removed from this site as soon as I received information that they were not what they had been claimed to be.

In fact, I have said that the comments here are UNmoderated many, many times. The disclaimer at the top of the comments field also says that.

So why do comments like your profanity-laden one disappear? Because someone was kind enough to point it out to me. When people do that, I remove abusive and offensive posts. The predators of CAIR et al would prefer such comments remain on the site so that they can try to use them against us, and so they would never dream of notifying me about them. But anyone of good faith and good will who sees an offensive comment is invited to alert me to it at director@jihadwatch.org, and I will remove it.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at April 3, 2006 11:53 PM

Sorry I didn't see the more recent post. It is usually customary to post updates/retractions in the same forum where they were posted.

Of course, the major point is not whether you retract or update your stories after they are demonstrably shown to be false. What I question is your lack of editorial control in publishing stories in the first place. If a story seems, on the face of it, too absurd to be beleived, it is standard journalistic practice to sit on that story until you have confirmed it. Instead you publish first and ask questions later, adding sneering commentary like "Never mind that they murdered her interpreter" along with your unsubstantiated story/interpretation. To so quickly rush to judgement about something so obviously incongruous bespeaks a level of parnoia and bias that makes the reader question your fairness in presenting other stories. I realize this is a just blog, but I thought you would be more concerned about fairness and journalistic ethics in order to more successfully prosecute your agenda.

I know you have said these forums are unmoderated, but I think you don't know what unmoderated means.

You wrote:
"...policing can and will only be sporadic. Nevertheless, it is not nonexistent. Comments referring to "Muzzies," advocating genocide, or making broad-brush characterizations about Muslims or anyone else will be deleted if seen (and if you care about our work in defense of human rights here, please bring them to my attention in an email and I will delete them). Comments that are breathtakingly off-topic, racist, made up of endless pasted-in articles from other sources, semi-literate or illiterate, or abusive or threatening are likewise unwelcome."

Sounds like moderation to me. Webster's definition
1 : to lessen the intensity or extremeness of.

As regards the fairness (or lack thereof) of the moderation... You claim my post was profanity-laden and that was why it was removed. A single WTF (purposely ambiguous--where I come from that means "what the freak") does not constitute "laden" (that implies loaded down with). Strange that you don't remove comments like "Allah assum lickum, everyone!" by illustr8rg8r or the not infrequent and infinitely creative "piss be upon him."

If your concern is with CAIR tarring you unfairly, I would think they would be much more upset with these sorts of comments than my castigating the posters here for their intemperatenous. Surely, they would love what I have written (since I must now be considered by the group-mind here as an Islamic apologist).

But perhaps your thin-skinned amen choir only alerts you to profanity that makes them feel ashamed for being judgemental jerks. Still, this sort of thing is common enough that I would have thought you yourself would have seen it.

Sorry if I got a little hot under the collar, but casting aspersions on a terrorist kidnap victim whose partner had just been shot, calling this poor girl "Burqa" Jill and making lascivious and insensitive comments about her being raped seems much more offensive to me than some puposefully ambiguous explitives.

Cordially and frankly,
Hugh

Posted by: Hugh Bristic at April 4, 2006 8:36 AM

Dear Hugh Bristic:

You say: "Sorry I didn't see the more recent post. It is usually customary to post updates/retractions in the same forum where they were posted."

True. I was out most of the day Sunday, and Rebecca posted the 2nd story. You're right: this should have been done.

You say: "Of course, the major point is not whether you retract or update your stories after they are demonstrably shown to be false. What I question is your lack of editorial control in publishing stories in the first place. If a story seems, on the face of it, too absurd to be beleived, it is standard journalistic practice to sit on that story until you have confirmed it."

That's a judgment call. You can't name a single mainstream journalistic source that hasn't retracted stories.

You say: "Instead you publish first and ask questions later, adding sneering commentary like 'Never mind that they murdered her interpreter' along with your unsubstantiated story/interpretation. To so quickly rush to judgement about something so obviously incongruous bespeaks a level of parnoia [sic] and bias that makes the reader question your fairness in presenting other stories. I realize this is a just blog, but I thought you would be more concerned about fairness and journalistic ethics in order to more successfully prosecute your agenda."

Fine. If this is the only mistake you can point to in 2 and a half years of blogging, I think I'm doing much better than, say, the New York Times or the Washington Post. If you don't like my perspective on things, feel free not to read it.

You say: "I know you have said these forums are unmoderated, but I think you don't know what unmoderated means."

I think you don't. What part of "policing can and will only be sporadic" do you not understand?

You say: "As regards the fairness (or lack thereof) of the moderation... You claim my post was profanity-laden and that was why it was removed. A single WTF (purposely ambiguous--where I come from that means 'what the freak') does not constitute 'laden' (that implies loaded down with)."

Your memory is faulty here. There was more in your post than just that.

You say: "Strange that you don't remove comments like 'Allah assum lickum, everyone!' by illustr8rg8r or the not infrequent and infinitely creative 'piss be upon him.'"

I asked people of good will to show me where offensive posts are, and I will remove them. I note that you were not kind enough to show me where the posts you mention are. I don't read most comments. I haven't even read the comments in this thread. I happened to see yours when it came in, so I replied to it. But I still don't read most of them. You are faulting me for not removing posts that I have not seen, do not know the location of, and which you did not bother to tell me where I could find. Then you fault me for a rush to judgment. Physician, heal thyself.

You say: "...I must now be considered by the group-mind here as an Islamic apologist)."

I don't know about that. But at very least it is clear you are inaccurate and unfair.

You say: "Sorry if I got a little hot under the collar, but casting aspersions on a terrorist kidnap victim whose partner had just been shot, calling this poor girl 'Burqa' Jill and making lascivious and insensitive comments about her being raped seems much more offensive to me than some puposefully ambiguous explitives."

Please specify where I did those things. You can't, of course, because I didn't.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at April 4, 2006 8:50 AM

You say: "I think you don't. What part of "policing can and will only be sporadic" do you not understand?"

I think I do. What part of "policing ... is not nonexistent" do you not understand?

You say: "Please specify where I did those things. You can't, of course, because I didn't."

Yes. Well, this is a frequent refrain of yours, but it belies a certain disingenuousness in this instance. Clearly, I was not referring to you personally, but instead to the posters here. I know you are busy, but I would urge you to read the context in which I made my remarks so you can more knowledgably comment on them.

You say: "Your memory is faulty here. There was more in your post than just that."

Perhaps, but as I recall, that was the only (pseudo)obscenity I uttered. It must depend on what you consider obscenity. I guess you'll "know it when you see it." We clearly see it differently. I would characterise the rest of my post as insulting, perhaps, but not obscene.

You say: "But at [the] very least it is clear you are inaccurate and unfair."

Given the circumstances, that seems an egregious case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Respectfully,
Hugh

Posted by: Hugh Bristic at April 4, 2006 9:52 AM

My dear Hugh Bristic:

It's interesting that you still do not supply direct links to the offensive posts, so that I can remove them. I believe that makes your agenda abundantly clear.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at April 4, 2006 12:19 PM

Dearest Mr. Spencer,

You wrote: "I believe that makes your agenda abundantly clear."

Yes. Indeed. I'm in league with the jihadis, feminazis, and multicultural liberal elitist America-haters. In fact, Ibrahim Hooper and I just got finished with lunch where we finalized our sinister plan to sabotage your site with critical commentary!

Come now, Mr. Spencer! Was it not obvious from what I said that the offending posts are on this very thread? Your paranoid response to my criticism is proving my point. You could of, course, simply do a find on the page, but I will save you the trouble. I actually didn't even realize there were direct links to comments or I would have supplied them. I see now that the date links to the post, so here are some of note:

"Assum lickum"
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/010837.php#c197447

Insensitive rape speculation
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/010837.php#c197368
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/010837.php#c197471
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/010837.php#c197471

I've seen "piss be upon him" in posts on other threads in this site. The search function on the site doesn't seem to crawl the comments or I'd provide links to those as well.

I certainly understand that people sometimes get beligerent when they feel threatened and there is plenty to worry about. However, too often there is a mob-like mentality here which brings out the worst in folks.

Respectfully,
Hugh

Posted by: Hugh Bristic at April 4, 2006 12:59 PM

"
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/010837.php#c197471
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/010837.php#c197471"

Whoops. Sorry for the double posted link. Typo.

Hugh

Posted by: Hugh Bristic at April 4, 2006 1:02 PM

Dear Hugh,

Thank you. They are gone. Give my best to Ibrahim.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at April 4, 2006 1:21 PM