So, she’s kidnapped, freed, and has this to say: The guerrillas are right.
OK.
Stockholm syndrome.
I’m also puzzled by her saying she supports the guerrilla war but is against the kidnapping of civilians. Who the hell does she thinks gets worked over the worst in a guerilla war? She’s lucky they didn’t behead her.
She could conceivably agree with the underlying principles (very important distinction) of the guerillas’ opposition and be against their execution of their beliefs.
She’s not necessarily right, but her sitch isn’t completely unbelievable.
It looks like they’ve made advancements in the science of decapitation, removing the brain while keeping the cranium intact.
If Berlusconi did pony up the million bucks that got them out, he might be thinking about asking for a refund.
Have you all (other than Kythereia, who’s made the same point) considered this?
Seems to me she has plenty of first-hand evidence on which to base her assessment, and to distinguish between the aims and the methods of the insurgents. It also seems quite possible that the kidnappers who snatched her aren’t the same bunch who’ve done the beheadings, given the chaotic jumble of competing interests running rampant in Iraq.
In addition to what ETF pointed out, y’all may want to consider that in her reported comments, Toretta distinguished between guerillas and kidnappers.
Sure, she’s sympathetic to the guerrillas. And she chooses to use her 15 minutes of fame to promote their cause.
Is it too much to wonder whether she might have used the opportunity to put the emphasis on the kidnappers. I mean considering her (relative) good fortune and the other, less fortunates who remain in their hands.
Which guerrillas? The Ba’athists? The Shi’ite fundamentalists? The Sunni irredentists? The Al Qaeda infiltrators? The foreign Muslims looking to get a shot in at the hated West? The Iraqis who’ve lost family to the invasion and seek revenge? The opportunistic gangsters in it for the profit?
I’d like to see her full comments, not just what was summarized in the news story. My guess is she’s well aware of all those factions, and what the invasion has done to set them loose on the Iraqi population as well as the foreign workers. Don’t forget, Iraqis are being kidnapped, too, for ransom profit. If they’re not being gruesomely slaughtered on video like the Western captives, it’s because that won’t score propaganda points.
She said:
Quite possibly that is why she and her companion were released. For all we know, she may have argued passionately for mercy to other captives. For all we know, her captors may have nothing to do with other kidnappings.
I don’t agree that her comments arose from Stockholm syndrome. She’s quoted as saying