There have been a number of incidents in the modern War on Islamism
where western leftists have been captured by the evil men
who their philosophy sees as "victims".
Too late, they discover that the jihadists do not just hate neo-cons and Zionists and evil right-wingers
- they hate all infidels.
They hate all kuffar.
In rare cases, the leftist victims come to abandon their old views
and gain a better understanding of the jihadist enemy.
But more normally, they try to fit the experience into their previous model.
They often end up making some kind of apology for or defence of their own tormentors.
They often express sympathy for their cause.
When you read what
freed hostages like Terry Waite
and Brian Keenan
often seem not to understand their Islamist torturers.
Why is this?
Perhaps because if you thought you lost all those years of your life for nothing,
just because of the demons inside the heads of ignorant religious maniacs,
it would be too hard to deal with.
It is easier to think they must have had a point somehow,
that their cause must make some sense, even if their methods were wrong.
That all that suffering must have been for something.
The beating of Robert Fisk.
He totally identifies with his attackers:
"if I were the Afghan refugees of Kila Abdullah, close to the Afghan-Pakistan border, I would have done just the same to Robert Fisk."
One of the ingrates, Harmeet Sooden,
claimed the rescue was
presumably to give the brave allied soldiers some good PR.
"Mr. Sooden saw his captors as 'victims' who had suffered at the hands of the American-led invasion of Iraq"
These heartless thugs not only murdered for no reason
his friend and fellow activist
And yet in his mind they are "victims"!
Responses to the CPT fools:
Iraqi embassy in Canada described the Christian Peacemaker Teams as
"phoney pacifists" and "willfully ignorant",
"The Christian Peacemaker Teams practises the kind of politics that automatically nominate them as
dupes for jihadism and fascism".
"Are the military justified in feeling annoyed that they put their lives on the line
for apparently ungrateful men who are opposed to all that the forces stand for?"
The CPT said they did not want to be rescued.
The Allied military, though, like the police, are far too brave and noble to let foolish people
Like police jumping in a river to save someone trying to commit suicide, they risked their lives
to save these ungrateful people, because that is what they do.
"The reality, however, is that British diplomats and military authorities
cannot ignore a citizen in peril. So a huge and expensive rescue operation swung into action."
Even when rescued, the morons were still troublesome:
"It was reported yesterday that the Canadians were reluctant to leave with the rescue team, objecting to association with the military."
Congratulations to the military for keeping their cool in dealing with these fools,
like police calmly and patiently dealing with irrational drunks.
The CPT are children:
Hostage James Loney
says of his transfer to the safety of the military:
"we went from one tomb to another".
He describes the military that rescued him
(the British SAS) as
"contrary to Christian teaching".
on the supposed "irony" that the peaceniks were rescued by the military men they despise.
It's not ironic at all, of course.
The police and military are there precisely to protect children like these:
"Daddy, isn't it ironic that I ran away from home to get away from you,
and when I ended up in jail, it was you that came and bailed me out?""Shut up and get in the car."
is probably the most pro-jihad newspaper
in the English-speaking world.
It regularly publishes open support for the Iraq jihad.
Despite this, the Guardian's correspondent
kidnapped by Islamists in Iraq in 2005.
He was quickly released, presumably when they realised their mistake.
The event made me look at Carroll's journalism in Iraq.
I didn't like what I found.
First, need I say that I am delighted he was released.
I don't find it amusing and ironic that the Islamists
attacked the Guardian.
The thugs who kidnapped him are the enemy,
and I wish only for their defeat and destruction.
Criticising Carroll's journalism (as I am about to)
does not imply that I ever wish him to be harmed (or even censored).
Gunmen take over Ramadi as bomb kills five marines
Under US noses, brutal insurgents rule Sunni citadel
Iraq rebuilding under threat as US runs out of money
Iraq war is blamed for starvation
"I just want to survive and go home with all my body parts"
And so on, and on, and on.
Endless negativity about Iraq's future
and hostility to anybody who is trying to make Iraq a better place.
Think I am too hard?
Would an enemy newspaper, trying to demoralise our side,
look any different?
Enemy propaganda wouldn't print stories about "the glorious jihad",
since that wouldn't sell with us.
Instead they would print articles, well, pretty much like the ones above.
Still think I am too hard?
That he is only reporting the news?
Well, there's a lot of other dramatic stories going on in Iraq.
I can't see a single story highlighting, for example, the awesome bravery and heroism
the American soldiers
taking on the jihad.
Or, if that sounds too much like propaganda to him
(as if the articles above aren't propaganda!),
how about titles like:
Justice for the victims as dictator faces death penalty
Insurgents kill 10,000 civilians to try to stop democracy
Poll: 90 percent of Iraqis support U.S. against insurgents
After 2 years of fighting, insurgents still hold no territory
Insurgents being massacred as they lose popular support
Arab democracy survives under siege from insurgents
Islamists now bombing mosques
Genocide of Shia must wait, says al-Zawahiri
Which is all simply factually true.
If he wrote articles like that, I don't think the Guardian would employ him for long!
Carroll's account of the kidnap:
"American helicopters buzzed overhead but however hard I visualised it,
no Rangers came shimmying down on ropes."
- Like a comfortable middle class kid abusing the police,
funny how he thinks he can abuse them as much as he likes
and they will still risk their very lives
coming to his rescue.
In short, Carroll sums up much of what is wrong with modern journalism,
in Ireland as well as in Britain.
And it is, I believe, a dangerous game that the defeatists are playing.
For they could succeed.
If the west does lose heart,
like in Vietnam,
and pulls out,
and leaves Iraq to war and democide,
it will be partly the fault
of negative, defeatist western journalists like Carroll.
They did it before in Vietnam.
And they might do it here too.
Delighted that he was released: Yes.
An admirer of his: No.
Yes, that's right.
Hatred is fanned across the Middle East not by Islamic supremacist
hate preaching in mosques and schools and on state TV.
No, it is the American counterjihad that makes Muslims riot and kill!
If it weren't for them, Islamic religious maniacs would return to their normal peaceful nature.
And who wrote this rubbish?
A man who was kidnapped by the jihad in Iraq!
The sneering, patronising tone of the article must be seen.
Rory Carroll treats anyone who opposes jihad and sharia
as if they are a curious and amusing sub-group of
not meant to be read or taken seriously.
And this, all this, in a newspaper that publishes Hamas!
Here is Rory Carroll, back in action,
writing a puff piece
on the totalitarian executioner
September 4, 2007.
Looks like he has learnt nothing from his experiences.
"No foreign reporter in Israel would allow himself to fawn over the Israeli narrative
the way Alan did over the Palestinian.""If Johnston, a tireless advocate for the Palestinian cause
got kidnapped by a clan of Muslim extremists,
imagine what would happen to a reporter who actually showed skepticism about Palestinian claims,
and wrote articles critical of Palestinians -
say, something on the way they have turned their schools and media into factories of hatred."
The jihadi kidnappers release a video of Alan Johnston
ranting against Israel, America and Britain.
I won't take these
as Johnston's own beliefs, since he is being held at gunpoint.
What if Israelis had abducted BBC man?, Charles Moore, 3 June 2007
- A thought experiment where Israelis kidnap the BBC man
and force him to spout pro-Zionist propaganda on video.
How different the world's reaction would be.
How less tolerant we would all be.
"The first point is that it would never happen.
There are no Israeli organisations - governmental or freelance - that would contemplate such a thing.
That fact is itself significant."
Moore says, even if Johnston is spouting the jihadis' words:
"the truth is that, although it is under horrible duress, what he says is not all that different from what the BBC says every day through the mouths of reporters who are not kidnapped and threatened, but are merely collecting their wages.
The language is more lurid in the Johnston video, but the narrative is essentially the same as we have heard over the years from Orla Guerin and Jeremy Bowen and virtually the whole pack of them.
It is that everything that is wrong in the Middle East and the wider Muslim world is the result of aggression or "heavy-handedness" ... by America or Israel or Britain.
Alan Johnston, under terrorist orders, spoke of the "absolute despair" of the Palestinians and attributed it to 40 years of Israeli occupation, "supported by the West". That is how it is presented, night after night, by the BBC."
Alan Johnston is freed, July 2007.
Will this make him and the BBC
any more objective (i.e. more anti-Palestinian)?
I doubt it.
No change in Johnston it seems:
Alan Johnston documentary, Oct 2007.
I saw this, and can agree that:
"It was typical of what passes for current affairs on BBC1 these days, mixing slick production values with superficial analysis"
"Whatever else it was, my Gazan incarceration was not what Iraqi prisoners had been forced to endure at Abu Ghraib jail."
As the blogger above says:
"he could have chosen three far more appropriate examples: Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev, who are being held captive by Hezbollah, and Gilad Shalit, who remains a prisoner of Johnston's 'liberators', Hamas. All three have been held for over a year, probably not far from where Johnston was confined, and you might think that their fates would have been on his mind in the months he's had to reflect on his own ordeal."
Delighted that he was released: Yes. An admirer of his: No.
The three - Shane Bauer, Josh Fattal and Sarah Shourd -
slurred the American military.
Bauer and Shourd
actually chose to live in Iran's evil ally
a terrorist state that for years has been helping to kill Americans in Iraq.
Bauer, Fattal and Shourd
were exactly the type of Americans that Iran should like.
But Iran didn't care.
It saw a chance to get some American hostages,
and thought these useful infidel idiots would do.
When finally freed in Sept 2011, Shane Bauer
reveals that he has learned nothing from the experience.
On release, Bauer
immediately attacks America:
"Two years in prison is too long and we sincerely hope for the freedom of other political prisoners and other unjustly imprisoned people
in America and Iran."
"The only explanation for our prolonged detention is the 32 years of mutual hostility between America and Iran."
As if American hostility towards a vile Islamic tyranny is unjustified!
As if American hostility is the cause of Iran's behaviour.
"The irony is that Sarah, Josh and I oppose U.S. policies towards Iran which perpetuate this hostility."
American policies are not the cause of this hostility.
Islamism is the cause of this hostility.
"In prison, every time we complained about our conditions, the guards would immediately remind us of comparable conditions at Guantanamo Bay. They would remind of us CIA prisons in other parts of the world, and the conditions that Iranians and others experience in prisons in the U.S."
Instead of defending the civilized conditions in Guantanamo
not to mention the fact that the prisoners are jihadi fighters, not random Muslims -
Bauer instead absurdly agrees with the Iranians:
"We do not believe that such human rights violations on the part of our government justify what has been done to us."
Robert Spencer, 27 Sept 2011, points out Bauer's crippling lack of imagination:
"The idea that the Iranian government might have hated and mistreated him and his friends for reasons of their own, unconnected to anything the U.S. government had done or could do, never seems to have occurred to Bauer. The possibility that the Islamic contempt and hatred for unbelievers, and the jihad that is prescribed for Muslims to wage against those unbelievers, might have been a motivating factor in his abduction, show trial, and imprisonment, doesn't seem to have entered Bauer's mind for a moment - even as he subsisted on bread and water and paced around his cell in Tehran. The possibility that even if the American government had behaved with perfect and utterly unimpeachable rectitude toward Iran, the Iranians still would have abducted, imprisoned and tortured him, appears inconceivable to Bauer."
The anti-war, anti-American, communist journalist
is kidnapped in 2005 by the Iraqi fascist resistance,
who don't care that she's "anti-war".
risk their lives for weeks trying to rescue her,
and in return she abuses them and claims they tried to kill her.
This ungrateful woman
about the brave Americans:
"For them, war is war. Human life is worth little."
When coming to Iraq,
"We are siding with the oppressed Iraqi people. No Iraqi would kidnap us."
furious with the Iraqi fascist resistance
for kidnapping people like her:
"In the first days of the kidnapping, I did not shed a single tear. I was simply enraged.
I used to tell my kidnappers in the face, "But how! You kidnap me, [the very person] who is against the war?!"
And at that point they would open up a fierce dialogue. "Yes. Because you go and talk to the people.
We would never kidnap a reporter who stays closed in a hotel. And then
the fact that you say you are against the war
may well be just a cover". And I would rebut, almost provoking them,
"It's easy to kidnap a defenceless woman like me.
Why don't you go try with the American military?". "
I don't think Giuliana understands
the resistance very well.
Why take on heavily armed American troops when there are
infidel civilians available?
He talks as if the jihadi gangs of Iraq have a point,
as if there is some valid reason to their hatred other than the demons inside their heads:
"They don't see themselves as terrorists but as fighters against an army of occupation, responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. So the Iraqis fight back against the overwhelming might of the invader with the only weapons they can."
Disgustingly, Keenan claims the allies are the same as the jihadis:
"five human beings have been caught up in this hideous firefight between misguided military adventurism and equally misguided religious and national fervour."
He describes the attempt to bring freedom to Iraq as:
"the sordid politics of neocolonialist enterprises."
He urges the allies to talk to the jihadi gangs of Iraq:
"Lines of communication are always opened up with the enemy tent. It is how wars are progressed to their ultimate conclusion. Every conflict is always and only resolved by dialogue."
Conflicts are sometimes resolved by defeat of one side.
Indeed, annihilation of one side.
Let's hope that happens here.
says his torturers Hizbollah
are not the same as Al Qaeda:
"In comparison to today's extremists, my captors were markedly different. Their cause and the reason for our captivity were specific not global."
Well, if you mean that fighting for Iranian imperialism everywhere
is "specific not global".
Hizbollah, for example,
slaughters Jews in South America.
Does that not count as "global"?
He lays out the "grievances" of the Iranian-proxy enemy thugs that kidnapped him.
They are nothing to do with Lebanon.
They are only about the interests of the terror state of Iran:
"Our captivity was a reaction to British, American and Israeli support of Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war.
It was also about the prolonged economic sanctions in Europe against Iran
and also it was a means of leverage to obtain the release of
14 Muslim freedom fighters
held in prison in Kuwait."
In what possible sense can fighting for brutal Iranian imperialism be considered fighting for "freedom"??
He does find someone he can compare with Al Qaeda.
No, not Hizbollah.
Rather, George W. Bush!
"Today's extremist belongs to a more sophisticated and extensive covert network.
... It is a problem that will not go away. Least of all because another fundamentalist in the White House makes pronouncements about the axis of evil and promises to rid the world of this contagion."
Yes, fighting terrorism is wrong.
Because terrorism does not exist.
And jihad does not exist:
"But are they terrorists? Terrorism, like the word Jihad, is a term bandied about for the gullible by the myopic. It serves to legitimise aggression as a form of righteous crusade."
the British female journalist hostage who became a nasty sort of Islamist extremist.
She made the short journey from a left-wing nut to an Islamist nut.
Her first husband in the 1990s was a PLO fighter.
She was held by the Taliban for a time in 2001.
She converted to Islam in summer 2003.
But already in
she had said
"suicide bombers are
She talked of
"the Palestinians' heroic
and said it is
"commendable and we should salute them."
People column, Andrew Pierce,
February 03, 2004,
reports that Ridley
supports suicide attacks on civilians in Israel,
including on Jewish children
because they may grow up to join the Israeli Army:
"There are no innocents in this war".
She defends forcing women to wear the hijab:
"I was in Iran last year. I know the hijab is a pain for them, but they will get no sympathy from me. It is clear that the hijab is an obligation, not a choice.
I don't have any sympathy at all with women who don't want to wear the hijab."
Of course, she lives in the West herself.
She tries to weasel out of all the hard questions (she never gives straight answers about sharia, 7/7, and so on).
"Your questions are so predictable.
I am just waiting for [you to ask about] forced marriages, honour killings and female genital mutilation."
I like the way Rachel Cooke is not intimidated by her:
"Actually, I think these are worthy subjects for discussion".
Yvonne Ridley was held hostage by the Taliban in 2001.
She reacted by becoming a radical Islamist.
Here she is
openly supporting Hamas in Jan 2009.
Yvonne Ridley openly supporting Hezbollah and Hamas in Sept 2010 (see end).
Yvonne Ridley, Mar 2011,
gloats over the plight of
held hostage for 5 years by her Islamic terrorist friends,
without any contact with family or even the Red Cross.
A Dutch journalist for a left-wing anti-American magazine
is kidnapped and repeatedly raped by the Taliban,
and still can't bring herself to condemn them!
She is so brainwashed by her left-wing beliefs that she reacts to evil this way:
"They also respected me.
They are not monsters.
I did feel angry because of the rape .. what I tried to make clear was that the acts of the Taliban cannot be reduced to rape. ... In a war situation people seem only able to think in black and white. I wanted to refine the story. A person is not a monster because he calls himself Taliban."
But he seems to have
about the nature of evil.
"almost being cries of desperation from disenfranchised young men
who really have become almost victims of a system that's highly dysfunctional".
Profile, 5 July 2012.
He talks about
Arabs in Israel
as if they are oppressed.
In reality, of course, they have far more rights in Israel than they would in the PA,
and they are desperate to stay in Israel and not be under PA rule.
the vile Canadian jihad-supporter who ran
was allegedly kidnapped by the Taliban in Nov 2008.
I say "allegedly" because this woman actually supported the Taliban!
threatened to behead her,
even though she supported them.
I said at the time:
"Whether this is true or not,
it doesn't seem like anything Canada should be concerned with.
She supports the killing of Canadian troops.
Canada should ignore any and all messages about her."
Probably the best comment posted in the previous is:
"What a pathetic woman. How do people end up this way, on the side of murderers?"
Code Pink leftists travel to Pakistan to protest American drone strikes, Oct 2012.
The local Islamic terrorists respond by ...
threatening to kill the leftists:
"the spokesman for the main Pakistani Taliban faction
issued a statement .. calling Khan [the organiser] a "slave of the West" and saying that the militants "don't need any sympathy" from such "a secular and liberal person."
The local newspapers carried [a] warning that several suicide bombers planned to attack the march. Separately, pamphlets signed by a group calling itself the Army of the Caliphate were distributed ... The fliers criticized Khan as an "agent of America, Israel and Jews."
"People are sincerely and emphatically advised to stay away from the public meeting, and anyone suffering any loss of life will himself be responsible in this world and in the world afterward," the documents warned."
A gay victim of Islam covering for his own attackers?
Wilfred de Bruijn
was beaten unconscious in a Muslim area of Paris in Apr 2013.
He is unable (or refuses?) to discuss the ethnicity of the attackers.
Instead he blames Catholics who oppose gay marriage.
"It was not Frigide Barjot
who was hitting my head,
or the bishop of Avignon lurking in that street to attack us.
But they are responsible."
A gay victim of Islam running cover for his Islamic attackers?
If the attackers were ethnic French, wouldn't he have told us?
American left-wing academic
Christopher Stone was stabbed by a Muslim fanatic in Egypt in May 2013.
Stone is anti-Israel.
"Israel's denial of its own state terrorism".
he refused to let his child attend the Israel-themed 7 year old birthday party of a Jewish neighbour.
"I do not think I can send my daughter to a
party that implicitly celebrates the Israel that I know."
He is anti-American:
"If she had invited me to a party celebrating the US I suspect my response would have been the same."
And so it is highly ironic that he was stabbed by an America-hating Muslim bigot
who was just looking to attack any random American.
Maybe now he understands what Israel is up against.
was held hostage under constant threat of beheading
for 3 months
by jihadi scum who slaughtered her interpreter, 32 year old Allan Enwiyah,
father of two children.
They released videos of her captive and crying to the world.
As soon as she felt safe, she
repudiated that statement:
"During my last night of captivity, my captors forced me to participate in a propaganda video.
Things that I was forced to say while captive are now being taken by some
as an accurate reflection of my personal views. They are not.
I was, and remain, deeply angry with the people who did this.
Out of fear I said I wasn't threatened. In fact, I was threatened many times."
Brave woman. Good for her.
So let me analyse
her earlier statement
as the voice of the jihadis, not of her.
claims that the jihadis, who are fighting to stop Iraqi democracy
and impose a fanatical Islamist state that
no voters want,
are in fact fighting for
"There are a lot of lies to come out of the American government,
calling the Mujahedeen terrorists and other things and I think it's important that American people
hear from me the Mujahedeen are only trying to defend their country.
This is only a jihad to stop an illegal and dangerous and deadly occupation
so I think it's important that people see the Mujahedeen are people that we've seen in our
entire history resisting an occupation trying to fight a foreign force in their land,
it's their country and they have a right to fight for their own freedom"
held hostage for 5 years by the communist terrorists FARC in Colombia, rescued July 2008.
And yet he understands everything.
He understands the evil terrorist nature of FARC.
He understands the heroism of his rescuers, the brave Colombian security forces.
How refreshing it is to see a freed hostage who talks with moral clarity.
Video from MSNBC.
See also here.
Search for copies