April 16, 2004

BOWED

Former human shield Donna Mulhearn, recently held hostage in Iraq, sounds like the new Yvonne Ridley:

"They tied the guys' hands behind their backs and confiscated our gear. In separate interrogations, they demanded to know who we were; they wanted to know if we were spies.

"We had an Iraqi translator with us and the interrogation turned out to be a moving, profound experience.

"I told them I was a member of the Labor Party and that we were working to get John Howard out of office at the coming election."

Mark Latham will be pleased to learn that his operatives are busily courting the crucial Iraqi kidnapper demographic. Mulhearn said she was lucky to be detained by a man who she described as "kind and gentle"; tell that to Fabrizio Quattrocchi, you vile idiot.

Posted by Tim Blair at April 16, 2004 02:42 AM
Comments

"The interrogation turned out to be a moving, profound experience."

is not that far from

"Once I just decided to accept it, that rape kinda turned me on."

It takes a profound sort of mental malignancy to twist yourself so desperately to ideology.

Unless, of course, it was all a cunning plan.

Posted by: Steve in Houston at April 16, 2004 at 02:55 AM

"I told them I was a member of the Labor Party and that we were working to get John Howard out of office at the coming election."

Presumably she'd say something the captor would want to hear ... but it isn't that far from the truth.

Posted by: Andjam at April 16, 2004 at 03:52 AM

If he was so kind and gentle, what was he doing kidnapping people?

I'd suggest she take a laxative the next time she wants a "moving, profound experience."

Posted by: Helen at April 16, 2004 at 04:24 AM

"I told them I was a member of the Labor Party and that we were working to get John Howard out of office at the coming election."

Let me just put that through my Arabic translator box =

"I told them I was a member of the Infidel Party and that we were working to get John Infidel out of office at the coming election."

hmmm I'll bet they didn't give a shit. Right?

Posted by: Dead Ed at April 16, 2004 at 05:31 AM

Instapundit hadsomething like this a few days ago, there's an MO here.

Who are they???

Posted by: Sandy P. at April 16, 2004 at 06:04 AM

It is astounding that anyone can make such a statement and not understand how ludicrous it is. Even if she thinks that kind of crap, she must know that it makes her sound like an idiot.

Posted by: Ted at April 16, 2004 at 06:46 AM

Stupid bitch!

Posted by: Kate at April 16, 2004 at 08:08 AM

"I told them I was a member of the Labor Party and that we were working to get John Howard out of office at the coming election."

Terrorist: Oh...you one of those COWARDLY infidels?

Posted by: Quentin George at April 16, 2004 at 08:20 AM

They let her go??? BUGGA!!!

Somehow me thinks she asked to be taken, being the attention seeker she is. She's a serial pain in the arse.

The Muslim infidels excecuted the wrong person. I think she should become a martyr to her cause. I'd pay to she the bitch shut up for good.

Posted by: tricia01 at April 16, 2004 at 09:36 AM

I read a little of this crap this morning, McFisker of Baghdad is making her out as some sort of Mother Teresa.

Here's a thought, I want to see evidence that she was kidhapped, where are the other so called captives.

I'm cynical enough to think this is a great little PR stunt, I'm waiting for her to announce her intention to run for office in the upcoming federal election, she was after all a press secretary for a NSW labor minister so we can assume that she knows the value of a media profile.

I'll give you my theory on why its total BS. Look at her comments, anti Howard, anti Australia, portraying the terrorists as kind, gentle souls, freedom fighters fighting the imperialist west. They dovetail in nicely with the left wing agenda and looks to provide validation Labors stance.

The BS meter really went off when she said that the terrorists had said to her " don't worry, we're Muslims so we can't hurt you" Obviously Sept 11, Bali, Madrid were the work of renegade Amish posing as Muslims.

She is a self promoting wannabe politician and I for one want to see some evidence before I believe this firytale.

Posted by: Nemesis at April 16, 2004 at 09:59 AM

Unfortunately, Ms. Mulhearn is getting a lot more media publicity than she deserves... and we're giving her more.
The Newcastle Herald has a thing going for her (she's a local girl) and they ran stories about her Wednesday and Thursday; I expect she'll feature majorly in the Saturday paper. Apparently she's stuck over there in Iraq anyway - she hasn't got enough money to fly back.
Still, credit where credit's due - she's working volunteer in a children's hospital; important work - and somebody's got to do it.

Posted by: TimT at April 16, 2004 at 10:58 AM

I'm with you Nemesis, I think this is complete BS. I think these type of statements must be pretty damn close to sedition though.

Posted by: Jimi at April 16, 2004 at 11:06 AM

Good Lord, I was just over at the SMH website and I found this quote by Ms. Mulhearn:

"I realised quickly that my prime minister, John Howard, had placed me in great danger by making inflammatory comments about the war just a few days ago," she said.

She's nuts.

Posted by: TimT at April 16, 2004 at 11:28 AM

also check out the age version of the story (which doesnt mention her previous career as a human shield for saddam) - she repeats the "US snipers shooting civilians" line that caused such controversy on here a few days ago.

Posted by: attila at April 16, 2004 at 11:30 AM

tell that to Fabrizio Quattrocchi, you vile idiot.

Don't be insensitive, Tim. I think they prefer the term "useful idiot".

Posted by: Andrew D. at April 16, 2004 at 11:31 AM

TimT, I don't think she should be let loose in any hospital, unless it happens to have a plastic shredder. That would be a truly moving experience.

Posted by: Freddyboy at April 16, 2004 at 01:22 PM

If someone can supply her address I'll send her a free copy of, "How to be a Rachel Corrie Look-Alike in One Easy Lesson".

Posted by: Jim Riley at April 16, 2004 at 01:32 PM

"I realised quickly that my prime minister, John Howard, had placed me in great danger by making inflammatory comments about the war just a few days ago," she said.

Yeah, it's all Howard's fault, he forced Donna to go to iraq and enter a war zone and put herself at risk...

Moron. Is she employed by anyone? Is she claiming Aust welfare while doing this? I'd be interested to know.

Posted by: Red at April 16, 2004 at 03:17 PM

You people are shameless. She survives an horrific kidnapping and you people want to see her dead because of her politics.

Posted by: deckard at April 16, 2004 at 04:31 PM

A "moving, profound" horrific kidnapping, deckard. And her politics are treasonous.

Posted by: Matt Moore at April 16, 2004 at 04:45 PM

deckard:

You people are shameless. She survives an horrific kidnapping and you people want to see her dead because of her politics

First, she described part of the event as a moving, profound experience. It apparently wasn't all that "horrific".

Second, Yvonne told her captors "...was a member of the Labor Party and that we were working to get John Howard out of office at the coming election".

Third, later she said "I realised quickly that my prime minister, John Howard, had placed me in great danger by making inflammatory comments about the war just a few days ago,"

Sounds to me like Yvonne is manipulating her "horrific kidnapping" to her political advantage. She doesn't sound like a terrorist victim, she sounds like a terrorist sympathizer.

The commentors on this thread aren't shameless, just pissed. Yvonne Ridley is shameless for manipulating this situation for her own gain.

I just can't decide if you are shameless in supporting Yvonne, or just stupid.

Posted by: JeffS at April 16, 2004 at 04:52 PM

You people are shameless. She survives an horrific kidnapping and you people want to see her dead because of her politics

That's not fair deckhard - I wanted her dead long before she was kidnapped.

Posted by: Alex Hidell at April 16, 2004 at 05:19 PM

Any further word on the possibility that the first Japanese hostages set themselves up?
Max

Posted by: Max at April 16, 2004 at 05:56 PM

Surely this evil bitch is showing Latham up for what he is a stooge and ally of these raghead vermin. I am amazed that the Howard advisors arent out here pointing up that here is evidence that Latham has surrended to these goat buggering camel lovers.
Disclaimer: I actually feel sorry for thr goats and camels.

Posted by: lawrie at April 16, 2004 at 06:05 PM

Surely this evil bitch is showing Latham up for what he is a stooge and ally of these raghead vermin. I am amazed that the Howard advisors arent out here pointing up that here is evidence that Latham has surrended to these goat buggering camel lovers.
Disclaimer: I actually feel sorry for thr goats and camels.

Posted by: lawrie at April 16, 2004 at 06:05 PM

Just another 'useful fool' for the Islamowhakos. Hell I bet they gave her a party before letting her go. She needs to be fucking shot!!

Posted by: Dog at April 16, 2004 at 11:05 PM

I'm amazed that the kidnappers let her go after
only a day. I've just seen her statements on
Nine TV and she keeps saying "the kidnappers
kept questioning us and asking me what I was
doing in Iraq" and I've been thinking it about
it hard for 20 minutes and I can't figure out what
she was doing in Iraq either. Can just see the
poor Iraqi kidnappers scratching their heads
saying "what on EARTH is this woman on about?"
They must have given up in frustration.

Posted by: Stuart Cooper at April 17, 2004 at 12:21 AM

They let her go b/c she was everything uninteresting they think women to be- passive, servile and eager to please their (twisted) point of view.

Not a challenge, in other words. They have plenty of sheep females.

Posted by: c at April 17, 2004 at 12:10 PM

Wow,

The malice, venom and overwhelming ignorance on this page is staggering.

We have first hand reports of American troops firing upon ambulances, women and children (here), Amnesty International reports over 600 killed in Falluja (here), we have a whole brigade of Iraq Soldiers who refused to enter Falluja because they (quite rightly) wouldn't risk the lives of innocent women and children just because four american mercenaries were killed (here) – the Americans have locked all 200 of them up. We even have the British military uncomfortable about how the Americans are handling the situation in Iraq (here).

And now, Donna Mulhearn, who is over there bringing aid to the poor people Bush, Blair and Howard are trying to "free" tells us the "bad guys" are actually pretty decent people. She was there and she tells us she was fired upon by the Americans, that the Americans are killing innocent civilians. All you people can do is pour scorn upon her efforts or call it a politcal stunt!!. Wake Up !!!

And shame on Downer for this comment "She's gone into a war zone . . . I'm not sure what an Australian would do wandering into that area. It was very reckless," – Umm, excuse me Mr Downer, that's what Aid workers do … its no use bringing them aid after them Americans have killed them all. And this little gem …(here) "Mr Downer said it was highly improbable she was shot at by US marines" … No of course not Mr Downer … they're the "good guys"... and of course, Mr Downer, you were there, so you'd know.

Finally, Mr Howard said "I think people have to understand that when they take unnecessary risks, they're not only putting their own lives at stake but they're also putting at stake the lives of many other people and it is just not acceptable," … Hmmm … Im sure the innocent people of Iraq who we have bombed and shot and starved for the last decade would agree with you Mr Howard. It was, is, and will continue to be, an "unnecessary risk" for our troops and all the rest of "the willing" to remain in Iraq. I think "the willing" should clean up their depleted uranium shells and unexploded cluster bombs and leave the poor people of Iraq in peace. To remain, as you so rightly put it is "not acceptable".

Posted by: Myyth at April 17, 2004 at 10:41 PM

"leave the poor people of Iraq in peace"??!

We should have left the poor people of Iraq to Saddam's peace, yes?

May the thousands upon thousands upon thousands of poor people of Iraq rest in peace in their execution plots without justice. May the marsh Arabs quietly continue to die off without their drained swamplands and livlihoods being restored. May the Shia and the Kurds still suffer in silence or be tortured and shot for disturbing the peace. May the Iranians and Kuwaitis again experience the love of Saddam and his soldier citizens as 'guests' in their countries. May the Saudis once more know the joy of having gentle Iraqi troops massed at their border for a visit. May the oil revenues of Iraq continue to fund more serene palaces of gilt and marble, silent WMD programs, and hush money pay-offs to mute noisy international opposition. May the people of Iraq remain poor and in peace without the unruliness of a thriving economy of opportunity and choice. May the poor people of Iraq remain in peace without a voice in government or in a free press. May the poor people of Iraq revert to the good old days of few schools, substandard healthcare, and electricity made available only to Saddam's favored towns.

May the tranquility of Saddam's Iraqi regime be reconstituted, so that the poor people of Iraq can suffer in peace, or lose their tongues. This whole war business to unseat a dangerous tyrant and democratize Iraq is unsettling to world karma. The peace of the poor Iraqi people has been rent asunder by "murderer" American soldiers fighting to establish a freer peace and "mercenary" contract workers trying to build infrastructure.

Wow, the malice, venom, and overwhelming ignorance from peace and love types is staggering.

Posted by: c at April 18, 2004 at 12:51 AM

Thanks C,

I completely agree with you. Saddam was a brutal dictator and the world is better off without him running Iraq. What I cant understand, however, is why it took so long. Why did the West support him all those years when they knew what he was like. I mean, he launched his political career by assasinating someone in 1958 (here). Why did we (the west) give him all of those chemical and biological weapons ? And, when even after he used them in 1988, why did the British Trade Minister, fly to Iraq and DOUBLE the amount of British traded credit to Iraq to $720 Million (Pilger : Distant Voices P98) … and that’s just the British … how much did he get from the US after he gassed all of those people ?

And, as you pointed out to me, given the world is concerned when Saddam masses his forces along his borders … but why did we continue to sell him the weapons, and, during the Iran/Iraq war, why did we sell weapons to both sides ? In fact, it wasn’t until he went after Kuwait and threatened all that oil, that we really cared too much what he did.

And, I agree, the the Shia and the Kurds did suffer in silence and were tortured and shot for disturbing the peace. And suffer they did. Especially after we urged them to rise up and then left them high and dry as Saddam's gunships (Made in USA) mowed them all down. And we made sure they kept sufering when we then implemented a decade of bombings to knock out all their basic infrastructure and then imposed a decade of trade sanctions to make sure they couldn’t rebuild them … hundreds of thousands of died because of the trade sanctions, far more than Saddam could manage with his death squads.

And now we have finally returned to save them all. And save them we will … all except for those we kill in mean time. And maybe you're right. Maybe lots of civilians have to die so the rest can be free .. but we havent set any of the women of Afghanistan free yet … will it work this time ?

My question is, how many times do we have to install and support some tin-pot dictator, and then realise he's actually a bad guy and then have to go in and kill a whole pile of innocent civilians to get rid of him, and then put some other dictator or puppet government in his place, before we realise we should, just maybe, mind our own business. Here's an idea, when we work out that someone is a dictator, rather than not selling him things like water purification plants, lets not sell him any more guns, or bombs, or helicopters that can be converted to gun ships.

Posted by: Myyth at April 18, 2004 at 02:19 AM

"We" installed Saddam? Good lord. "We" sold Saddam the preponderance of his weapons, and not the Russians, the French and the Germans?? Interesting. "We" are inordinately concerned with Iraqi oil and not the French who stood to gain $100 billion in oil revenues were Saddam to stay in power? Hmmm.

"We" "abandoned" the Shia and Kurds after the first Gulf War, and it wasn't the UN and the Arab allies who were adamant that we not do anything beyond pushing Saddam out of Kuwait? Well... And after Saddam's unconscionable slaughter of Shia and Kurds, it wasn't the Americans and British who established "No Fly" zones in the north and south of Iraq at great expense and danger to servicemen, even though the UN wouldn't sanction the protection zones? Gee.

"We" bombed Iraqi infrastructure for a decade? Had no idea. "We" imposed sanctions on Saddam and starved his people, despite the extensive black market oil money that funded more palaces, weapons programs and bribes? Shame on us. And "we" didn't give many Afghan women, children and even men more freedom than they had under the corrupt Taliban oppressors? Too bad

I didn't realize all that. Somehow I also missed seeing all of the international peace activists protesting against Saddam's brutality and demanding that he be unseated. I mistakenly thought I heard them protest in favor of keeping the regime intact.

I didn't realize that human rights activists agitated for intervention into Afghanistan to try freeing women and children from Taliban bondage. Thought I heard something about violating their culture and sovereignty, instead.

My mistake. I should study current events more.

Posted by: c at April 18, 2004 at 04:30 AM

"...not the Russians, the French and the Germans?? Interesting. "We" are inordinately concerned with Iraqi oil and not the French who stood to gain $100 billion in oil revenues were Saddam to stay in power? "

Maybe true. But does that absolve the US of any guilt, because there were other parties to a crime? The French never owned the Iraqi economy as the US does now.

Furthermore, the Russians and French were not advocates of war- so their hypocrisy is not as bad as America's. America has greater interests in Iraq than France ever had.


"We" bombed Iraqi infrastructure for a decade? Had no idea. "

Yes we did; intermittently we bombed them for a decade. And Operation Desert Fox ordered by Clinton in 1998 was a huge bombing campaign to punish Iraq for non-cooperation with the UN inspection regime.

Posted by: rhactive at April 18, 2004 at 09:27 PM

How evil of us. We should simply have sent Saddam bales of candy.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at April 19, 2004 at 04:49 AM

Andrea- "How evil of us. We should simply have sent Saddam bales of candy."

You probably did. (Intermingled with satellite imagery of Iranian troop positions).

Posted by: rhactive at April 19, 2004 at 07:55 AM

Ooh, you are such a comeback-meister! It makes me all hot it does. Oh wait, no it doesn't.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at April 19, 2004 at 02:02 PM

The war wasn't about Oil.

It was a typo.

"N" "Q"

Whoops. Our bad. Luckily there is some oil here so we can make the best of it.

Posted by: IXLNXS at April 20, 2004 at 11:08 AM