Legitimate Jill Carroll question...

I don't care that she is or was, but what exactly was her reasoning behind wearing the full muslim garb once being released? Was it because of socio-cultural requirements where she was being a woman in a muslim location or something? Especially since a few times I thought there were pictures of her in captivity without it so once released it seemed strange to me that she would be.

More my own curiosity than anything else. I'm kind of transient now so I haven't been watching much tv or being as up on things as I would like to be.

maybe it was due to "Stockholm syndrome."

What does it matter what she wears?

I'm thinking Wag the Dog here.

Perhaps as more details become available, things will start to make sense. But there are too many facts as we know them that are still missing. Her dress is just one of them.

explain what you mean by not passing the smell test?

Why was she released? She stated she was detained in an area with nice furniture, and that she was treated well. This doesn't make sense, especially when others reported the conditions during their captivity were not so hot. Others in her position had their bodies dumped in the streets, with their heads severed. What is different about her?

Video of her taken during her captivity showed her wearing what appeared to be the clothes she had on when she was captured. Why, now that she has been released, is she wearing clothing more traditional to the region?

As I said, as more facts become available, it might make more sense, but there's just something not right about this whole story. I can't point to any one particular thing, but it's kind of like 9/11 - it makes sense until you start looking at the details, that's when it falls apart.

I'm sure there will be more info to come in the next few days. We'll see.

Also, before her capture she was one of the more "low-profile" Western reportes; she often wore a headdress when she went out to report. By all accounts she has been quite sympathetic to the Iraqi people. I can imagine that she has generated many friends and sympathizers amoung the Iraqis. I think her gentle treatment is more attributable to these factors than to anything else.

I didn't see anything that unusual about them.

The media keeps announcing that she was trying to speak for the Iraqi people about the war... but to me, the articles just read like standard human interest pieces with little, or no politics interjected into them, one way, or another.

I was surprised after hearing the hype to read the articles and just find standard fare.

Maybe I didn't read the right ones because I didn't find anything to pro or con one way or another rfegarding the invasion.

Just an observation on my part.

Maybe her kidnappers were not "hard-core terrorists" who actually intended to kill her if their demands were not met. There is copy cat crime reported in our country so I don't see where Iraq would be any different. Besides, not all the people kidnapped over there have been killed.

Maybe this group is holding other captives and she is being very careful not to endanger their status.

Pictures I have seen of her before her abduction often showed her wearing Muslim clothing so she wouldn't stand out quite so much as she traveled. Maybe she feels more comfortable wearing it while she is still in the area.

I don't know if any of my suppositions are correct, but there may be credible reasons to explain the anomalies that you mentioned in your post.

We read the one on Egypt, and suddenly things there started making more sense to us.

Despite stupid stereotypes, killing women is *NOT* considered acceptable there; the fact she was dressed as a MODEST woman of good character (which is one of the things the head scarf says to people familiar with the region) is probably one of the things that saved her life AND helped her to be treated well.

First, while she was captured, she gets on TV and says "Unless the Iraqi women are released from prison by such-n-such date, they're going to kill me." Then a couple of days after that date, she gets on TV and says "Unless the Iraqi women are released from prison by such-n-such date, they're going to kill me. And they're serious this time. So please meet with their demands." Then a couple of days after that date she gets on TV a third time and says, "Unless the Iraqi women are released from prison by such-n-such date, they're going to kill me - and they're really, really serious this time!!" And then a couple days after that date she just sort of shows up out of the blue.

And then during her initial interview she says she was un-harmed, un-threatened, treated nicely, and very comfortable. Yet on the three previous TV spots of her pleading for her life, crying, saying she was going to be killed, contradicts her post-kidnapping interview. So which is true? The 3 spots on TV where she states she's crying and being threatened with death or the post-kidnapping interview where she says everything was cool and she never felt threatened?

:shrug:

I remember her being very calm, then a heart-wrenching, tearful plea, then more calmness, then, with no hoopla whatsoever, she's released?

Something is seriously weird here.

Yesterday and today -- all these nudge-nudges...

I think there is something odd about this whole thing, but I don't think she was a participant in whatever it is (if it is anything other than what is being reported)

I guess I wouldn't put it past our own government to kidnap reporters that they thought were on a trail they didn't want them to be on...that sounds pretty tin foil but anything is possible with this * reich!

but this is DU and we are more than aware that there is always something going on past the TV camera's reach.

Like Pat Tillman and Jessica Lynch, I think Carroll may be the victim of exploitation--and in Carroll's case, both sides may be exploiting her, and likely without her knowledge or cooperation at all.

AndyA. Something is not right.

killed!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

No, seriously, she wore traditional garb while doing her job in Iraq, and there's legitimate reasons for conceding as much as possible, as shown by her capture in the first place.

... that she developed a case of Stockholm Syndrome. Particularly since by all accounts she was somewhat sympathetic (as most real people are) to the Iraqi plight.

Do you blame her? I don't. No matter how you slice it she's been through an ordeal and whether it is Stockholm or just playing a game to get out alive I am just happy that she managed to walk away.

Because this is exactly the same discussion they are having over there.


If a westerner shows respect for Islamic customs, there must be something wrong with them, right?

Some posts even slamming JESSICA LYNCH... crazy.

sorry, wrong thread...

I know she's not Islamic.
I have also seen pictures of other women in Iraq not wearing the traditional outfit.
If she were in Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia I wouldn't have even asked because I know that it is much more traditional there.

Like I said I have no problem with her doing so, and would expect her to if it was the custom of the area she was was in. That's why I was asking, not to condemn her or say it was a bad thing. I applaud her on all levels.

I posted such above :D

in much of the middle east.

they are very parochial over there and western clothes on women bring too much attention.

You know -- the same groups that have been burning liquor stores in Iraq. Mostly Shiites, I think.

The only female Western reporters in Iraq who don't dress that way never leave the Green Zone. She's not a TV reporter -- she's a print reporter. She doesn't get to carry a huge wardrobe around with her.

at the time of her release. I can't imagine her captors saying you're free to go back to your hotel, or wherever she was, to pick up her western garb. Can you?

To buy her suitable Western clothing.

Before the invasion, some Iraqi women would have liked a chance to shop at the Gap. But Saddam didn't allow the US corporation in. Now Saddam's gone, but the religious leaders are trying to force the conservative look on all the women. Some Muslim women like the traditional look--I'm reminded of older nuns who HATED losing their habits. But there ought to be a choice.

It was her way of showing respect to the culture of Iraq and the way women typically dress over there. In fact some of the countries require that females (even foriegners) dress according the their laws.

Try going topless on Virginia Beach in high summer (a common practice on almsot any public beach in Europe) and see what happens. ;-)

I didn't have a problem with it!

:spank:

most women in Iraq don't wear the full garb that jill wore upon release. My guess is that's what her kidnappers provided her with, thus, that's what she was wearing.

journalists in the ME do so -- Geraldine Brooks, Diane Sawyer has, etc. It's the equivalent of NOT wearing jeans and a T-shirt if you're interviewing someone of importance here. No conspiracy, no smell test to pass...

was an AFS student in Turkey when she was in high school and she also she also started wearing a ha jab (head scarf) because she said it was much easier to move around without attracting a lot of attention to herself.

She is fairly young and impressionable still, maybe she wants to wear that garb, and developed a liking for it. There is always the Stockholm syndrome too, where you try to please your captors.

I do think all this talk of Stockholm Syndrome is a bit premature...

unkindly so they would have even more fuel to add to the flames in Iraq... We should be ashamed at the way we treated Iraqi woman as opposed to how well she was treated.....

She's been through a terrible ordeal and no one has the right to judge her, but I think it's revolting for us to praise her kidnappers. Have you forgotten that they murdered her translator? Ugh to your remark about how commendable they are.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

What a dishonest response. You accuse me of "perhaps you would of (sic) preferred they behead her?????" All you have to do to know that's patently false is read through my comments here.
And sorry, it's implicit in your remark that you did praise her kidnappers for treating her well. Even if they didn't kill her translator, they fucking held her against her will for 3 months. I don't give a shit how well they treated her, kidnapping her was a travesty. I'm thrilled that she was unharmed during her kidnapping, but I absolutely condemn her captors.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I have a very low (as in no) tolerance level for torture, kidnapping, etc.

I just think there's more to this than meets the eye, but that certainly doesn't imply that I'd have preferred the outcome to be different.

her mission in Iraq BEFORE she was kidnapped, I am totally surprised that everyone doesn't know that this is the way she dressed BEFORE the kidnapping. Her family, her colleagues, and the CSM all reported that she wanted to IMMERSE herself in the Iraqi culture.

What part of IMMERSE do some of you not understand?

Some of these posts do not pass the "sniff test."

all week long here.....

If you had simply answered that the area she was in required her to dress that way to fully immerse herself in the culture of that particular section or that particular group, that would have sufficed. As I stated in another reply post if she had been in Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia I wouldn't have even wondered. But I know many areas of Iraq are still less traditional islamic and more secular so that is why I was a bit confused. That as well as the fact that I stated quite clearly that I and and have been somewhat transient for a while without a tv or access to be able to read anything and everything I can get my hands on.

But you got me. I registered several years ago and built up thousands of posts just to wait for this moment to reveal myself. Bravo. Quite the sleuth you are! Your sniff test foils another freeper.

Jeez Louise this place blows my mind sometime.

is not the same place it was before the invasion.

There are no "secular" parts of Iraq now -- those days are long gone.

Most Iraqi women -- even in Baghdad -- have taken to wearing traditional Islamic garb when outdoors because of the threats from the relgious militias that have sprung up since the invasion and the potential for sexual crimes against them. It is a sad new reality for them. By wearing traditional garb when out covering her stories, Jill Scott (correctly) was acting in a manner to protect herself from unneccessary scrutiny and potential harm.

That she was wearing them upon release didn't even make me blink an eye.

As for any "smell" about this story, there really is none. Her release was most likely achived by the payment of a ransom by her family -- like most of the other hostages. That to is a new reality in Iraq.

She was released to a Sunni political group so she may still have been playing along with them, saying the things she thought her captors wanted her to say, looking the way she thought they wanted her to look and maybe wondering if the political group she was turned over to was complicit with her captors. I did not see a later video when she finally was under the protection of Americans.

at the time of the video done immediately after her release. Iraqi Islamic Party owns Bagdad TV and they shot the interview.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0331/p01s01-woiq.html
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002275363

She was a Mideast correspndent prior to going to Iraq. She learned Arabic because she wanted to report from the mideast. Female reporters, like Christiane Amanpour (who is half Iranian), dress appropriately for the culture and country from where they are reporting. In any case, she stated that they provided her with clothes so she was wearing what they gave her. Do you think they wanted her to leave the location where she was being held in jeans and a t-shirt? That would have been foolish.

If you a female tourist to Europe, you cannot enter many churches and cathedrals (like St. Peters in the Vatican) when wearing shorts and a tank top. You wear a skirt or slacks and carry a lightweight cotton scarf to throw over bare arms. It's the same if you travel to Morocco or Algeria.

Its much safer to blend in and not look like an American almost anyplace but especially Iraq.

Your answer was the same as everyone else's which is all that I was looking for. And you resisted the urge to name call or accuse. I appreciate that.

husband to visit his family and she always covers her head for 2 reasons, 1. out of respect and 2. it's safer for her. Nothing wrong with that question btw, if my bil wasn't a muslim i wouldn't have known either--oo he's a lapsed muslim but when he goes home to visit they show their respect.

Those who think all Muslims are fanatics ought to meet a few. (Not that most observant Muslims are fanatics.)

I had a Pakistani co-worker who recommended several Indian restaurants because the Northern Indian food usually served there was much like Pakistani food. He said there was an authentic Pakistani restaurant in town, but they didn't serve alcohol. (He was known to drink the occasional beer.)

Then we joked that if he returned to Pakistan, he could take a few more wives. He blanched--his beautiful, intelligent, spirited wife was all he could handle.

Thanks for the response.

She wouldn't necessarily have the garb on while she was filmed indoors.

Very very simple explanation - you really do need to pay closer attention - it was all over the news.

....I am currently essentially a transient and in between residences, and have limited tv access and limited internet time to read every article I'd like to on every single subject was completely lost on the people here who are telling me I need to pay better attention or excoriating me for not knowing the answer to my qeustion in advance.

Seriously, this place just absolutely blows my mind sometime.

This has been a learning experience. Now I know how joe average non political junkie must feel when they try to inquire about something that they may not have had the time or resources to research in full detail.

I just really hope that every other time when I did have the time and resources to keep myself up on everything that I wasn't as big a prick to people as I'm seeing on this thread.

-tory posts - it's really common sense.

I would have been equally excoriated if I had done the same thing - you may want to grow a thicker skin...

I explicitly stated why I wasn't fully aware of the specifics, and I explicitly stated I didn't have any issues with her doing so, and that I was just curious and unaware. After reading the board and not seeing anything else relating to that specific question and not having time to comb through the entire past few days worth of posting, a poster who has been on here for several years and has several thousand post asks a question with what should have been more than enough clarifications and that results in the degree of paranoia and name calling that came after.

Good lord it's no wonder we on the left have some of the problems we do. People are more concerned with the idea of a freeper or republican possibly getting one over on us than they are with possibly education someone or explaining something to them that they may not know.

I think you are just too far out of the loop to know what's going on with this issue emotionally with folks.

Never mind...

other than that, this whole thing stinks to high heaven. I'm going to be watching this story closely...

Why does this "stink to high heaven", I'm curious.

To me nothing about it is unusual -- I think a ransom was paid for her release and it is as simple as that.

First, while she was captured, she gets on TV and says "Unless the Iraqi women are released from prison by such-n-such date, they're going to kill me." Then a couple of days after that date, she gets on TV and says "Unless the Iraqi women are released from prison by such-n-such date, they're going to kill me. And they're serious this time. So please meet with their demands." Then a couple of days after that date she gets on TV a third time and says, "Unless the Iraqi women are released from prison by such-n-such date, they're going to kill me - and they're really, really serious this time!!" And then a couple days after that date she just sort of shows up out of the blue.

And then during her initial interview she says she was un-harmed, un-threatened, treated nicely, and very comfortable. Yet on the three previous TV spots of her pleading for her life, crying, saying she was going to be killed, contradicts her post-kidnapping interview. So which is true? The 3 spots on TV where she states she's crying and being threatened with death or the post-kidnapping interview where she says everything was cool and she never felt threatened?

Jesus Christ, it's like people are upset they didn't behead her on tape for our viewing pleasure or something.

you the impression that "I'm sorry she wasn't killed..."

edit: I'm sorry, It's just a quirk of mine that I don't believe everything I hear or see on TV - call me weird...

prison, not ALL, but SOME. Maybe they figured they weren't going to get any more released. Maybe they got paid off. Who knows?

I just heard on NPR that she didn't want to go with the Americans to the Green Zone because the insurgents said they would kill her if she went. The woman was in shock.

Party HQ. (A party rumored to have ties to "insurgents.") They told her the video would be for their records. She didn't expressly set out to do an interview for TV.

While sitting in the Islamic Party HQ (probably wondering how they were connected to her captors), she may well have thought it prudent to emphasize how well she was treated. I doubt she felt either completely safe or free at that point. When the US military arrived, she apparently was even afraid to go to the Green Zone because her captors told her it had been infiltrated and she would be killed if she went there or cooperated with the Americans.

n/t

all wore "traditional" garb to show respect for the Egyptian people, and their culture. We were repeatedly told by our hosts that this was not necessary, but for us, it was truly a gesture of RESPECT and no hardship: my husband wore loose, long sleeve "business casual" shirts (that he still wears at home) made of 100% cotton, while my mother and I wore some of the most beautiful silk galabayas and silk head scarves. To our surprise, this turned out to be the most comfortable thing we could have been wearing; the loose nature of the gown and the natural fibers meant we were cool and comfortable while standing in 95 degree heat in the Valley of the Kings, and still warm even with the chilly evening breezes on the Niles. We had no problems with the weather AT ALL (hot or cold) -- and in fact, we started shaking our heads at the "stupid tourists" who were wearing tank tops and shorts who were sweating like crazy while getting sunburned!

Here was one crazy thought: the folks in the area knew how to dress comfortably for their climate: doh!

The head scarves simply became a fashion accessory for us, as well as a way of proclaiming that we were "decent" women -- also, it became incredibly convenient to cover up the "bad hair day" thing that happens to all of us.

It hasn't been all that long since "good women" always wore hats or other head coverings in church; watch any old movie from the 1930s or 1940s and you will see "head coverings" as something extremely common to OUR culture. Religion aside, at a certain point its simply a fashion thing and (here's some common sense), COVERING YOUR HAIR IN THE DESSERT SO IT DOESN'T END UP DIRTY ALL THE TIME WHEN WATER IS NOT ALWAYS AVAILABLE KIND OF MAKES SENSE. :eyes:

I want to go back to Egypt very badly; it was an amazing trip, and I believe the RESPECT we attempted to show our Egyptian friends was appreciated by them. It was a wonderful learning experience, and the people were amazing. And I *love* the clothing we wore -- if only it wasn't "unfashionable" here in the states! :)

There's a common thread I've noticed since Jill Carroll's release, from this post, to the National Journal, to the jerks at Imus. Oh my God, she's wearing a burka. She's one of "them," now. (Not to say this post is insulting, it isn't, but seems to reflect the same concern.) Carroll often wore a head scarf while out in public in Iraq. As a journalist, she had to blend into the culture, especially since she didn't have official military protection & was interacting w/Iraqis. She was wearing traditional western clothes when she was first captured, and was given the "full Muslim garb" by the captors - so, that's why she was wearing it when she was released. I think it's odd how focused people are on her wardrobe - like we think she's not "American" anymore, or something? I'm not referring completely to the OP here, who seemed to be asking a sincere question, I'm just wondering why this has been mentioned so often.

Perhaps as in my case and in the case of many others there's a genuine curiosity and desire to understand the situation more. For several reasons it struck me as something that I realized I didn't understand and wanted to know more of the reasoning behind: 1) Pictures of her in captivity showed her covered much less and in less traditional garb, and 2) I still understand Iraq (despite all the civil war and strife) to be a much less fundamentally islamic country, less so than say Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia which have laws requiring such things. If the answer was a simple "She is just showing respect for (whatever part of the country she is in) then that's fine and all anyone had to say in response."

Honestly, the absurd condescension and paranoia on here when someone doesn't know every last historical, cultural, sociological information or every aspect of every news story is absolutely pathetic. I consider myself to be a very informed, well read, and well travelled person and am aware of many things and am far from ignorant. But the reaction to my post has just simply dumbfounded me. Is our desire to not let freepers "pull one over on us" or not get past our precious "sniff tests" so much more important than perhaps educating and informing someone with legitimate questions? It sure as hell seems that way.

I think you had a legitimate question, but it's hard to tell that apart sometimes from the people who are hurling insults. I think it all springs from the same curiosity you mentioned, people just have different reactions: some seek to learn more, & some seek to degrade & demean what they don't understand. You are in the first group, for sure, so please don't interpret my post as a slight against you personally. I was mostly wondering why so many other people have insulted & demeaned Carroll over this question. There's nothing at all wrong w/looking for info - that's what DU's for.

:beer: :popcorn:

Too late. Honestly it's clearly my own stupid fault I guess for not having a TV or newspaper delivery , and also not having the time to read every single thread on DU and then daring to have a simple question that I thought people might be nice enough to answer. God, I'm clearly such a fucking freeper asshole. I can't believe I haven't realized it until now.

and inevitably get flamed. Oh well. But I argee with you completely.

I think she was just complying with cultural norms.

captivity, dressed in traditional clothing, to an Iraqi political party office, where she was immediately interviewed before she was turned over to the U.S. She was wearing what she was given to wear.

near the Islamic Party Office, they told her to go to that office and she did. The Islamic Party people take her to the Islamic Party HQ, tell her they're making a video for their records, not for broadcast on TV, and so she goes along. They go through this song and dance, presenting her with a plaque and a Koran (pretty good impromptu ceremony for the camera for an unexpected "celebrity" guest). The video was made at the Islamic Party HQ and she hadn't a chance to change her clothes.

(Oh and apparently, per CSM, her captors had told her the Green Zone was infiltrated and if she cooperated with the Americans and/or went to the Green Zone, she would be killed. So a CSM writer she was talking with by phone actually had to convince her to go with the US military when it arrived to take her with the Green Zone. Clearly she still didn't feel safe, regardless of where she was.)

Then about two hours after her release the video appears on the TV channel just oh by the way owned by the Islamic Party. The Islamic Party used her for their own purposes, she likely didn't feel she was at last entirely free and safe while in the hands of the Islamic Party and said what she thought would be acceptible to them. And now wingers get to attack her for statements made and clothes she wore in a video made when she likely felt she was still not unconditionally free or safe.

I suppose if any one of us was sitting at the HQ of the Iraqi Islamic Party under such circumstances, we'd rip off the Islamic clothes and denounce the kidnappers as murders on camera? If the goal was survival and freedom, perhaps not.

FREE AT LAST: Jill Carroll, shortly after her release after 82 days as a hostage in Baghdad.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0331/p01s01-woiq.html?s=t5

After her release and immediate interview by IIP, she was transported to the 'Green Zone', where she changed into what appears to be a military T-shirt.