When terrorists have a history of kidnapping and beheading, I find it is easy to think that she was mistreated and any information that would come from her would be coerced and forced.

Terrorists kidnappings and forced video tapes ‘admissions’ and calls for this country to leave Iraq, or to have women released, or any other demand made through a victim that sits on a floor with masked men who hold weapons over the kidnap victim does not bring me thoughts of having someone treated well.

From what I read, the driver was killed outright during the kidnapping. I will have to re-read that portion, but wasn’t the driver an Iraqi?

So I find it hard to believe that they would kill an Iraqi citizen (still need to verify that it was an Iraqi) and suddenly be ‘nice’ and cordial to an American.

Please excuse me while I do not hold my breath thinking that someone who kidnaps foriegners and has a history of beheadings, that their victims are suddenly house guests.

- Or just maybe her Daddy told her to get her ass home and quit fooling around. I saw him on FOX and he was very carefully leveling his responses and comments, which left me with the impression he couldn’t have been more elated to see her safe, but was, lets say, very very upset she was running around Iraq in the first place.

- I still believe shes a Liberal journalist in spite of her words of “fair and balanced”, but at this point I’m thinking shes less “Liberal” than she was before all this happened.

- Maybe the cure for BDS is to give every Liberal a chance to see the Jihadists up close and personal. Might quiet some of the moonbat wailing, and educate their fevorised minds.

- Bang

Yes.

“That’s not being treated well.”

No it wasn’t. But again, the second video told a different tale. When are you going to get it through your thick skull that where the confusion came in was over the second interview?

“Diddn’t you know her translator was murdered?”

Yes.

“that’s not being treated well.”

No, it’s certainly not treating her translator well, but it speaks nothing for how SHE WAS TREATED.

“No inside info is needed.”

No one said it was, but that’s sure as heck what you implied.

“The only inside info I had was a common acquaintance that told she was a fantastic and courageous person.”

Uh huh.

BTW, why does everything I write have to be spelled out slowly to you? Almost everyone else who comes here and comments gets what I say the first time around. Do you actually take the time to read what I write?

Didn’t you see the video of her crying? That’s not being treated well. Diddn’t you know her translator was murdered? that’s not being treated well. No inside info is needed. The only inside info I had was a common acquaintance that told she was a fantastic and courageous person.

“I’m not threatening you, I’m “treating you well.” At least according to your standards.”

What the hell are you talking about?

I’m not threatening you, I’m “treating you well.” At least according to your standards.

Dolt.

I’m so sure you did, andrew. No doubt she was secretly text messaging your ‘inside track’ with that information while in captivity.

A lot of people were fooled initially by the vagueness of early media reports of her interview on Baghdad tv. Fortunately I wasn’t one of the ones who joined in to lump her in with the terrorists who kidnapped her.

I did. I wasn’t sure that was enough to ool you. Now I know that that was enough to fool you. I thought something was up, because I knew she hadn’t been treated well.

It wasn’t clear to me Thursday when she was released that she was still under duress during an interview that was aired on Baghdad TV where she talked about how “well” her captors treated her – in fact, the article I referenced did not make clear at all that was was under duress in the interview in which she said that (and in fairness to them they probably didn’t know, either) so I don’t think I was the only one who thought she made that particular statement of her own free will.

Please learn to read what I say in full before asking questions. You’ll find that they are probably already answered and you just missed them thanks to selective reading on your part.

I told you I never was. I never found it easy to be fooled in this situation. I want to know what makes ST think it was easy to be fooled in this situation. Is it because Caroll worked for a Christian newspaper?

What I asked is above. ST said “It was easy enough to be fooled into thinking that Carroll’s statements made after her release on Baghdad TV were made without coercion”

And I asked: Why?