Some examples: “she was a willing participant;” “she’s wearing the terrorist headgear. She’s saying nice things about them.;” “She strikes me as the kind of woman who would wear one of those suicide vests;” “She’s like the Taliban Johnny or something;” “Jill Carroll is increasingly starting to bug me.”
(Update. Don’t miss the comments to this, expecially: “She gets no slack from me. She was anti-America when she went over there and I say the kidnapping was a put up deal from the get go. Poor translator wasn’t in the equation but it made it look legit.”)
As far as I know, the only information we have about her captivity is her very summary statement given just after her release. So, these guys do not have a factual record from which to draw their conclusions.
From what, then, did they draw them? You’ll notice these commentators are all men. It could be they are a bit jealous that one of the ‘fairer sex’ could endure with good will such a trying time? Maybe they were worried that their manliness would have deserted them? Or perhaps they are upset that she did not immediately become a bit of anecdotal support for their anti-foreigner pro-war prejudices?
I do not know from what base emotions these conclusions sprung. I do know they tell us more about their holders than their object.
(Btw, how long before Jeff Sessions says Jill Carroll’s statements are undermining our troops?)