Fox News journos freed after bogus conversion

If you absolutely have to get kidnapped, you might want to consider doing it with the Holy Jihad Brigades, who freed Fox News correspondents Steve Centanni and Olaf Wiig after one or both of them claimed to have converted to Islam in a videotape. The two were dropped off today at Gaza City's Beach Hotel, ending two weeks of captivity. Wiig appeared testy upon his release and Centanni said they'd been tied up at various points, but neither man was injured in the ordeal.

"We were forced to convert to Islam at gunpoint," Centanni later told Fox. "Don't get me wrong here. I have the highest respect for Islam, and I learned a lot of good things about it, but it was something we felt we had to do because they had the guns, and we didn't know what the hell was going on."

So drink a stiff Rob Roy and dig into a roast pork in honor of this conversion.

Comments

[crimethink]

Oh great, so now they're apostates.

The fatwa is probably being drawn up as we speak.

[R.S. Porter]

Forced conversion: the essence of faith.

[chamberlain]

Is there a difference between a "bogus" religious conversion and a "real" religious conversion?

[b-psycho]

"Don't get me wrong here. I have the highest respect for Islam, and I learned a lot of good things about it"

LOL...surprisingly astute use of sarcasm there.

[Akira MacKenzie]

"Don't get me wrong here. I have the highest respect for Islam..."

I'm calling bullshit here. Fox News is one a few employers outside of the Republican Party were overt bigotry is job requirement.

[Akira MacKenzie]

Edit: ... a job requirment.

[Mike]

You really think they were released purely because they converted and made an anti-American speech? C'mon guys, every hostage ever released by terrorists has been released because of a six- or seven-figure ransom.

As far as the conversion goes, look up "taqiyya".

[joe]

That's quite possible, Mike.

Or perhaps they belatedly realized that their demands were not going to be met, and had to come up with a Plan B that allowed them to save face.

Either way, this is an obvious cover story.

I bet the other Islamist militias steal these guys' lunch money.

[chamberlain]

There's a thought, joe.

Maybe the U.S. can pull out of Iraq if the 91% of Iraqis who want us to go agree to convert to Christianity?

A win-win solution!

[Ken]

"overt bigotry is job requirement."

As compared to all other MSM where anti-US and Bush derangement syndrome is a requirement?

[Ayn_Randian]

Now, if I said that being Muslim makes you violent, I would get beat up on (rightly so) for jumping to irrational and illogical conclusions about a group of people.

If Akria says that all folks at Fox News hate Muslisms (or have to be bigots to work there), hey that's just good commentary.

That was one of your dumber statements, Akira.

[Akira MacKenzie]

As compared to all other MSM where anti-US and Bush derangement syndrome is a requirement?

Please... If you don't like MSM is reporting about, then maybe you ought to stop doing it.

"Bush derangment syndrome" is right-wing bull, but the Conservative Persecution Complex is all to real and its victims include neo-con armchair-militarist and bible-beating redneck alike.

Please, seek professional help.

[Akira MacKenzie]

As compared to all other MSM where anti-US and Bush derangement syndrome is a requirement?

If you don't like what the MSM is reporting about, then maybe you ought to stop doing it. Of course that's is the definition of madness, isn't it? Doing the same thing over again (e.g. stirring up foreign policy hornet's nests, starting immoral wars, stompping on domestic civil liberties and general human rights) and expect a different result?

I don't know about "Bush derangment syndrome," but the Conservative Persecution Complex is all to real and its victims include neo-con armchair-militarist and bible-beating redneck alike.

Please, seek professional help.

[Ayn_Randian]

is all to real and its victims include neo-con armchair-militarist and bible-beating redneck alike.

Who is it that needs to seek professional help again? The person who thinks that the traditional media is biased or the one with irrational hatred of Christians and sees "redneck bible-beaters" behind everything?

Get a grip. And that's coming from an atheist.

[Akira MacKenzie]

Gee Ayn... when did you become a whore for the Conservatives?

[Ayn_Randian]

uhh never, or are you asserting "if you're not with me you're against me" syndrome? So I criticize a critic of conservatives and that makes me a "whore for the conservatives?" Sounds akin to "criticizing the President makes you a whore for the liberals"!

Both mindsets are equally dumb.

[joe]

The first time I was accused of Bush Derangement Syndrome was the Fall of 2002, when I wrote on a comment thread that I didn't think the Bushies were capable of carrying out something as complicated as the Iraq War without screwing it up.

Oh, come on, joe, that's crazy! Only somebody with a a mental illness could think the Bush administration was too incompetent to successfully conquer, govern, and rebuild the oldest place in the world!

What's the matter with you? Crazy Democrats, that's the judgement they have...

[Ruthless]

Should there be a separation between proselytizer and gun?
Granted persuasion and proselytize both start with "p," still....

Come to think of it: As an old hillbilly, shotgun weddings need to stop too.

[joe]

Akira,

Don't confuse the shlubs doing the actual jouranlism with the journamalists, editors, and corporate folks at HQ.

There is certainly a severe bias at Fox towards the RNC line (which, I'll note, isn't the same thing as an ideological bias towards the right), but that's the fault of the Giant Heads back home.

Rupert Murdoch isn't stupid enough to actually send the Kook Aid drinkers to do legwork in Iraq. They wouldn't last ten minutes.

[Akira MacKenzie]

Both mindsets are equally dumb.

Not when one side truly right, and other side truly is wrong.

[Akira MacKenzie]

Don't confuse the shlubs doing the actual jouranlism with the journamalists, editors, and corporate folks at HQ.

Sigh... Very well, joe. I apologize to Ayn for the "whore" crack and to the reporters for impugning their honor by implying that working for Fox requires being a bigot. (Despite the likes of Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, and John "We need more white babies." Gibson.)

I still hate this stupid war and this network who cheerleads for it 24/7.

[chamberlain]

Fox New's ratings are falling off a cliff, Akira.

Expect the cheerleading to stop if the Demos win control of Congress.

[Jon H]

"C'mon guys, every hostage ever released by terrorists has been released because of a six- or seven-figure ransom."

Maybe they were given voice roles on The Simpsons.

[Jon H]

"Expect the cheerleading to stop if the Demos win control of Congress."

No way, it'll ramp up. Partly in order to gin up anti-Dem pseudo-controversies to lay the groundwork for the 2008 elections. And partly because Fox will be the Bush administration's first line of defense against Congress doing its work. They will probably be tasked with keeping the Dems on the defensive.

[Ruthless]

"C'mon guys, every hostage ever released by terrorists has been released because of a six- or seven-figure ransom."

On my frequent walks around Sinincincinnati, I sometimes see TV personalities, some of whom are more diminuative than they appear on TV. I'm thinking I might be able to take 'em.
Help me?... a 1- or 2-figure ransom?
I'm pretty loosey-goosey.
... just trying to support my WalMart grocery habit.

[Ayn_Randian]

think the Bush administration was too incompetent to successfully conquer, govern, and rebuild the oldest place in the world!

What's the matter with you? Crazy Democrats, that's the judgement they have...

Get off of it, joe. What was the vote tally on the D side to authorize the use of force again? So the Democrats thought the Bush Administration couldn't handle it but went ahead and authorized him to invade anyway? jesus, you've said some dumb things, but this takes the cake.

Either you argue that the whole thing was ridiculous from the beginning and NEITHER party could've handled it, or you think what we have in Iraq is what was going to happen anyway. Claiming that the Ds would've somehow done a better job when they are indistinguishable from the Rs is sheer partisan hackery.

[joe]

Do you mean the AUMF? The one that authorized the Bush administration to decide whether we were gong to war, and how that war would be carried out? The one that was accompanied by repeated assurances that "This is not a vote for war," but merely giving the president the authority to disarm Saddam Hussien, which could be accomplished by means short of war? Is that the authorization for the use of force you meant?

I don't know the exact vote tally in Congress, Randroid. But I can tell you that is was brought up to the vote in the House of joe, and defeated 0-1.

"Either you argue that the whole thing was ridiculous from the beginning and NEITHER party could've handled it, or you think what we have in Iraq is what was going to happen anyway."

What an idiotic statement. It is not possible for anyone to have handled Iraq differently than the Bush/Rumsfeld/Cheney team?

"Everything must be this way.
Welcome to the Soft Parade."

[Chamberlain]

Actually, Ayn,

Claiming to know how things would have turned out in Iraq had the Democrats been in charge is known as...clairvoyance.

It's same skill Bush is using when he sees it's worth our while to stay in Iraq.

[Hmmm]

Ayn Randian,

You have to consider the context of the vote to authorise force. It was not on the eve of the war, but rather prior to UN Security Council Resolution 1441. Their vote can be reasonably interpreted as indicating that the Democrats wanted the President to have a big stick in hand as he conducted diplomacy to force a tougher UN policy on Iraq. Instead of using the option of force to fulfill a weapons inspection mandate, he used it to conduct a nation building project.

[Jeff P]

Steve Centanni and Olaf Wiig should urinate on an open Koran on live TV.

[Aresen]

Actually, I worry for the journalists.

Some religions treat 'apostates' as the worst enemy of 'the faith'.

I cannot say if this is true of Islam, but if some fanatic were to take the journalists' 'conversion' at face value, the journalists could be in extreme danger.

[Ayn_Randian]

Be apologetic for the Demos all you want, folks, I just remember that before the 2000 election that, when I was going to join the military, there were buddies of mine who were waiting to see who would win the election, because Bush had been making noise about iraq EVEN THEN! To pretend that the Democrats didn't know what Bush was going to do with the authorization is just sheer apologetics; you might as well be Leni Riefenstahl.

To Hmmm: I have to consider the context of a vote to authorize war? Oh really? So what you're saying is, is that the Ds have an excuse because they can whine "we didn't really think he would go to war"?! Ha ha ha, what do you think a war authorization means?

he one that was accompanied by repeated assurances that "This is not a vote for war," but merely giving the president the authority to disarm Saddam Hussien, which could be accomplished by means short of war?

I don't know the exact vote tally in Congress, Randroid. But I can tell you that is was brought up to the vote in the House of joe, and defeated 0-1.

First of all, it's Randian...Ayn_Randian...I don't call you KosDroid, or Liberaldroid, or anything else, so if you deign to disrespect me again, you can go to hell.

Second of all, "the house of joe" isn't what you were talking about in your original post, you were talking about Democrats, a party whose leaders overwhelming supported the AUMF (and again, WTF did you think that meant, anyway?) when it came for a vote. And if it wasn't used as they intended, joe, perhaps the Demos need to grow a pair and say that. But they haven't...big shock. Because the Ds suck as an opposition party, since it's tough to be oppositional to somebody who keeps coopting your issues.

So joe, the question is (and please just straight answer it, no dodging) if a Democrat had been in charge, would you support the current operations?

[Russell]

Converted at gunpoint?

Looks like we're winning the fight to spread the Constitution- persuading the Holy Jihad Brigade of the right to bears arms puts the camels nose under the flap of the Billof Rights , so let's all push together .

[Ayn_Randian]

Claiming to know how things would have turned out in Iraq had the Democrats been in charge is known as...clairvoyance.

It's same skill Bush is using when he sees it's worth our while to stay in Iraq.

Actually...no. It's recognizing that's there not really a difference between the two parties. It is sheer nonsense to suggest that "it'd be better if only OUR party had been in charge" because there was absolutely no criticism of how the initial invasion went from the D side, except for a few hardcore anti-war folks. It's funny that when everything went to pot, Ds stand up and, instead of saying that Iraq was the wrong choice in the first place (a statment with which I don't necessarily agree), the Ds instead stand up and say "well, we just have the wrong people in charge."

I have seen nothing of significance when it comes to a policy concerning Iraq from the Ds. If someone can quote me a comprehensive, honest-to-God different Iraq "plan" from the Democrats, I will shut up.

[Aresen]

Russel

Even though the 'conversion' was literally at gunpoint, that might not excuse the journalists in the mind of a fanatic.

There is precedent in the west. When the Jews and Moors remaining in Spain were forcibly converted after 1492, they were watched closely by the Inquisition. Those who "backslid" were tortured and executed.

[Ayn_Randian]

Aside to Tim: how lazy! You made me go look up what a Rob Roy was so I could drink one instead of linking to the recipe...

Sheer irresponsbility... 🙂

[joe]

"You might as well be Leni Reifenstal."

Yawn. Say good night, Gracie.

"Second of all, "the house of joe" isn't what you were talking about in your original post,"
Er, yes, it was. The post is up there at 7:17 PM if you'd care to reread it. It's a memoir of my experience being called insane and overly partisan for judging the adminstration to be incapable of effectively managing such a big task.

"if a Democrat had been in charge, would you support the current operations?"

No, absolutely not. The task as the Bushies defined and executed it is a black hole. I might have supported more capable and honest president in an effort to leverage our post-9/11 position into an effort to put the screws to Saddam, but a more capable and honest president wouldn't have brought about anything that even remotely resembles "the current operations." Such a president would have allowed the UN teams to finish their work and disprove the existence of Saddam's WMDs, for example, instead of using them an excuse for a long-dreamed-of Iraq War that couldn't possibly go wrong.

"there was absolutely no criticism of how the initial invasion went from the D side"

At the time of the invasion, no; once the die was cast, the Democrats tried to provide the united home front that Bush, Cheney, and Rove have spent so much effort trying to destroy. However, there were months of politics before that, during which many prominent Democrats criticized the focus on Iraq, the lack of planning, and the dishonesty of the case for war.

Still, underneath your mounds of horse excrement, there is a grain of truth: too many Democrats took George Bush at his word.

You screwed up, Flounder. You trusted us.

[Russell]

Arensen:

Are you suggesting State persuade Juan Carlos to send his army in hot persuit of the backsliding paynimry that split across the Straits of Gibraltar in 1492? His people would certanly enjoy the element of surprise on hitting the Hisb HQ in Gaza, because nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.

After all, the two reporters in question work for Zorro TV

[Russ 2000]

That sounds similar to my conversion to Catholicism at age 4. It was at beltpoint rather than gunpoint, but hey, you go to church with the captors you're given.

[Aresen]

Russell

"Are you suggesting State persuade Juan Carlos to send his army in hot persuit of the backsliding paynimry that split across the Straits of Gibraltar in 1492?"

Only if they take their Holy Hand Grenades.

[Ayn_Randian]

No, joe, too many Ds voted for war and are caught between backsliding on their former vote and being called hypocrites or "staying the course" and being unpopular. What's really funny is that now your apologia for the Ds include "but we were too dumb to know what Bush really meant!". As I told you, Bush was rattling sabres about Iraq in 2000, joe. 2000. Again, your claim that Demos were all just dupes doesn't pass the smell test. They supported this war and now they can't back out.

[joe]

That's some nice revisionist history.

With the Right Wing Media Machine flogging it, it might have even had a chance of working...if the reality it is trying to rewrite weren't so recent. You really think the pre-war criticism of Bush's actions in selling the bogus WMD and Al Qaeda excuses, the complete lack of planning for the post-war, the ending of the inspections by Bush, the the sharp partisan divide between those who swallowed all of this crap and those who spoke out about it - a divide that was constantly harped on by the Republicans when they thought it was in their interest to do so - is just going to vanish from everyone's minds because you want it to?

Dream on.

[whit]

for pete's sake... regime change in iraq was the official policy in the US long before bush. like it or not, 911, combined with some crappy intel and SH's stone cold bluff (those audiotapes proved he was fooling even his generals, pretty much made iraq invasion a given. whether kerry would have invaded iraq? who knows? quit possible. ralph nader probably wouldn't have, since he would be too busy erecting the corvair memorial museum.

unlike many here, i do not think that GIVEN WHAT WE KNEW AT THE TIME, that the repubs/dems can be given much fault for invading iraq.

i *do* think the management of the occupation phase of the war has been pretty frigging weak, and i think rumsfeld was wrong, failed to put enough boots on the ground, etc. and showed some serious suckitude.

a lot of the akira'esque naysayers want to blame bush, but it wasn't just buschco that had intel about SH and the WMD's. the UK certainly did too, and i don't recall the UN security council claiming iraq did not have WMD's (cause the UN security council came to the same basic conclusion we did.)

hindsight is luverly and all, but trying to portray the dems as the voice of reason prior to iraq invasion is absurd and contrary to evidence

[Herb Schaffler]

Congress needs to assert it's Constitutional authority and not allow the President to start up wars and should not give him permission to do as he sees fit about whether or not to start a war. The authority for declaring war rests with Congress and not with the President.

[Creech]

Did anyone else see the wife of one the |Fox hostages on tv pleading with the kidnappers by saying her husband has always been pro-Palestinian?

[Ayn_Randian]

joe - if it was crap, the Democrats swallowed it too. Your cries of "but I swear, we were the loyal opposition! I swear, come on guys! The voting record has nothing to do with the Ds stance on it...didn't you see ANSWER out there?" are all too funny.

Just the same old partisan pretzel logic. do you never tire of hackery?