« More Pervert Penguins | Main | Open Thread »

June 9, 2009

Stockholm Syndrome and the Moonbat Elite

What would it take to make moonbats stop siding with the West's jihadist enemies? 9/11 wasn't enough, or it wouldn't have been followed by the election of a character named B. Hussein Obama, who predictably apologizes to Muslims for our existence and has been systematically dismantling our terror defenses. For liberal journalist Joanie de Rijke, getting kidnapped and repeatedly raped by the Taliban wasn't enough either:

In November 2008 a Dutch journalist, Joanie de Rijke, was abducted by Taliban fighters in Afghanistan. She was held captive, raped repeatedly, and released after six days for a ransom of 100,000 euros ($137,000). After her ordeal, she acknowledged that her captors "did horrible things to me," but added in several media interviews "They also respected me," and emphasized "They are not monsters."

Dutch persona non grata Geert Wilders comments:

Our elites, whether they are politicians, journalists, judges, subsidy gobblers or civil servants, are totally clueless. Plain common sense has been dumped in order to deny reality. It is not just this raped journalist who is suffering from Stockholm syndrome, but the entire Dutch elite. The only moral reference they have is: do not irritate the Muslims — that is the one thing they will condemn.

de Rijke's severe case of Stockholm syndrome probably started long before she was kidnapped. Unfortunately, this potentially terminal disease is hardly limited to Holland.

Joanie de Rijke goes native.

On tips from JustAl and Burning Hot. Hat tip: Gateway Pundit.

Posted by Van Helsing at June 9, 2009 9:20 AM


Those are my pajamas she has on here head!

Posted by: Anonymous at June 9, 2009 9:24 AM

I think a leftist would argue that she wasn't raped but merely "hate-f--ked." There's a big difference, you know.

Posted by: V the K at June 9, 2009 9:34 AM

Everyone who voted for Barack Hussein Obama either already has, or in short order will contract, this woman's same malady.

Posted by: ZMarshall at June 9, 2009 9:34 AM

"....Joanie de Rijke...was held captive (and)raped several media interviews (she said) "They also respected me," and emphasized "They are not monsters."

So they kidnapped and raped her, but it's ok, because they "respected" her?

Miz Joanie needs some serious psychological counseling.

Posted by: TonyD95B at June 9, 2009 9:35 AM

Let's see they raped her but they respect her. Is she a F****** idiot?

I wonder if they were to rape her daughter would she still respect them?

Posted by: Janet at June 9, 2009 9:41 AM

Actually, being raped by a Muslim is probably something she enjoyed. Its definitely in the "Top 10 Things A Liberal Must Do or Experience Before You Die."

Here is the complete list.

1. Be fisted by random stranger (women twice, men once)
2. Contract AIDS
3. Pray to Karl Marx
4. Be raped by a Moose Limb
5. Raise Taxes or vote for someone who will
6. French Kiss Michael Moore then give him a blow job
7. Overdose on narcotics
8. Not bathe for a month
9. Sue someone
10. Come out of the closet

Posted by: Random Dude at June 9, 2009 9:47 AM

It's called the Mandingo syndrome.

Posted by: oldguy at June 9, 2009 10:02 AM

This girl is truly a pristine metaphor for what ails Western culture as a whole right now, en toto.

Posted by: mega at June 9, 2009 10:14 AM

I just can't reconcile doing horrible things to someone you respect. Must be some mental deficiency.

Posted by: Mr Evilwrench at June 9, 2009 10:15 AM

C'mon, what is 'rape'? A form of expression by members of a culture not her own, is all. Probably nothing more than that already experienced on a 'rough' date after an extra cocktail or two. She's not a young woman.
Perhaps she brought this on herself? Considering what some of those Moooselimb babes look like, perhaps Ms. de Rijke should have done something about that hair. My understanding is, and she should know this, red or blond hair on a Western Jezebel such as she is tantamount to an evening of free lap dances to a normal red-blooded Dutchman (are there any?). She must have titillated the poor, unsophisticated tribesmen and brought it all on herself. She asked for it.
She should compensate those who paid her ransom. Its her fault after all.

Posted by: Shooter1001 at June 9, 2009 10:17 AM

Finally! We discover the secret behind the obama kool-aid, it's poppy tea from the talywakerban!

Posted by: Eric at June 9, 2009 10:41 AM

Stockholm syndrome indeed. I've heard a few women explain the horror that is rape and the fear and mental anguish they suffered afterward. This chick is a true Dhimmi if she thinks the Taliban "respected" her after they violated her multiple times. I'm sure the most ultimate respect in her eyes, is if they separated her head from her neck.

Posted by: Atomic Lib Smasher at June 9, 2009 10:56 AM

So, essentially, in Ms. de Rijke's horribly confused mind "rape = respect." Okay, maybe she liked it, is into the rough stuff; perhaps that's the explanation. More likely, however, she's just another dhimmi Lib (Liberalism first, last and always!) who (incredibly) does not want to antagonize Muslims (even those who repeatedly raped and abused her over a period of months) -- anything but that!

Posted by: jc14 at June 9, 2009 11:22 AM

The infadel female dog was good the first round, but she smelled like bacon and tuna fish after my collegues finished with her sex therapy.

Posted by: Respectful Taliban Sex Therapist at June 9, 2009 11:40 AM

I think at some point it just comes down to that dread middle class--you know that group of hard working, common-sensical folks that mind their own business as they quietly go about their productive, "mundane" and simple lives, and who, incidental, do not find people like this "special", at least in any positive way.
(This last bit is of course what REALLY stings)

That is what the "elites" hate. Anything that reasonable, "common" people are for, these people are against.

Since decent people believe in Western Civilization, these people wish to destroy it.

That they destroy themselves in the process does not concern them in the least.

Better to rule in hell...

Heck, it is even better to serve in hell.

Anything is better than facing what a hard, gritty thing the world is, what a immense accomplishment Western Civilization is and how insignificant they are before all both.

Posted by: Mongoose at June 9, 2009 11:47 AM

No doubt they let her have a few tokes on the opiated hash filled hookah before they broke out the tea and cookies. That probably qualified as "respect" to a head from Holland. Had they not served her cookies she may have reported them as "monsters".

Posted by: buzz at June 9, 2009 12:05 PM

Maybe it's too soon after her captivity for her to have reintegrated her thoughts. The mind plays some strange games sometimes when you are in a struggle for survival. I do blame the media for reporting this as if it made any sense to an undamaged mind.

Posted by: Judith M. at June 9, 2009 12:13 PM

One can only imagine what kinds of twisted, demented trauma that Ghost of Wellstone has endured before he began trolling here.

Posted by: Panday at June 9, 2009 12:40 PM

Let's review the bidding. They kidnapped her and raped her repeatedly, but they're not monsters. Then who the hell is a monster, apart from George Bush?

Posted by: Jay Guevara at June 9, 2009 12:53 PM

The way I read it, sounds like she may have enjoyed those "horrible things". I wonder how her girlfriend feels about that?

Posted by: JoeShmoe at June 9, 2009 1:06 PM


That's easy, it is obviously christian white males who are looking for a good woman that is willing to stay home and take care of the kids.

Posted by: son of a preacher man at June 9, 2009 1:11 PM

Classy. My question: how many people here bothered to check out the validity of the claim made? Doesn't it seem a bit strange that a woman would say that people who raped her respected her?

Maybe she is totally nuts, but my first guess would be that the people who raped her are probably different individuals than the ones who she thought respected her.

Posted by: Brandon at June 9, 2009 1:13 PM

After her ordeal, she acknowledged that her captors “did horrible things to me,” but added in several media interviews “They also respected me,” and emphasized “They are not monsters.”

C’mon, Brandon, stop trying to spin this to protect these animals. She referred to her captors, and then used the personal pronoun “they” subsequently. A personal pronoun has to have antecedent basis, i.e., refer to something already mentioned, to have any meaning. She’s obviously talking about exactly the same people – her captors - in all cases, especially since she says “they also. If she’s not referring to the same people, her statement makes no sense.”

Posted by: Jay Guevara at June 9, 2009 1:26 PM


I think that would be the worst journalism of all time, had they neglected to make that VERY SPECIFIC point.

More likely Judith M is onto something than you.

Posted by: The Him at June 9, 2009 1:28 PM

P.S. I took the five minutes necessary to read back through the links and she VERY SPECIFICALLY says that the person who raped her is the SAME MAN she thinks treated her with respect.

She also says that she does not have Stockholm Syndrome and that people just don't understand, it's not all black and white, you know.

I should also mention that she writes for what equates to a soft-core porn mens magazine (something similar to MAXIM) that hates America and thinks that the Taliban are the good guys.

What a shock.

Posted by: The Him at June 9, 2009 1:37 PM

Interesting, I can't find anything but a couple of short quotes that aren't even full sentences.

I'm not trying to protect anyone. I'm questioning whether we should automatically take a few words, which are out of any context, and assume that the speaker intended them to mean something that sounds totally absurd.

Posted by: Brandon at June 9, 2009 1:44 PM

Not the first time a European journalist has had a bad case of Stockholm Syndrome after being brutalized by Muslims:

"If I had been them, I would have attacked me." - Robert Fisk after being beaten to a pulp in Afghanistan.

But I think this should more properly be called "animal handlers' syndrome". When animal handlers get attacked, they almost always say it was their own fault, and not the animal's.

These elitist European journalists have the same attitude toward the people that attacked them. They feel the attackers are only capable of reacting to us - like an animal. They are so elitist they don't really view these people as people at all. They are only victims who aren't capable of rational thought whatsoever.

I'm a little more generous. They are people capable of independent thought, but they are angry over the failure of their societies and are marinated in an evil ideology, so they end up being evil.

Posted by: forest at June 9, 2009 2:00 PM

Maybe her captors had large schlongs and she liked it! Moon bat Fantasy has come true for her!

Posted by: Dave at June 9, 2009 2:00 PM

With liberals there's always a grey area in any situation where they can find room to squirm out of the obvious truth.

Posted by: Brandon is a pervert at June 9, 2009 2:03 PM

"During her captivity, de Rijke was raped repeatedly by Gul. In her book In de handen van de Taliban, which she published last month, she writes that the Taliban commander

“could not control his testosterone. I had the impression that afterwards he regretted what had happened. He knew it was wrong.”


"Though de Rijke was angry with the Dutch and Belgian authorities, she told the Dutch media in interviews given after her release that she was not angry with her abductors. “I do not want to depict the Taliban as monsters. I am not angry with Ghazi Gul. After all, he let me live,” she said. About the rape ordeal she declared that though the experience had been horrible, she was also shown respect. “It’s not black and white. These things can exist side by side. That doesn’t mean that I’m suffering from Stockholm syndrome.”"

O.k. Brandon, help me out. Those are complete sentences. What were you reading?

Can we at least agree for once that this woman is a tad screwed up?

Whether it be from the trauma of the experience, or that she was so screwed up to begin with that she cannot set politics aside even in this circumstance to call a bad person for what they are, can even be irrelevant if you want. When do people who aren't monsters abduct, rape, and ransom women?

Posted by: Anonymous at June 9, 2009 2:13 PM

Last post mine, forgot the name field.

Posted by: The Him at June 9, 2009 2:14 PM

C’mon, Brandon, stop trying to spin this to protect these animals.

Brandon's aversion to confronting reality is becoming the stuff of legend.

Posted by: V the K at June 9, 2009 2:17 PM

ya *hate* to pile on poor raped and beaten joanie, but...but....but she's really leaving us no choice. no matter how badly you were brutalized; no matter how badly you get screwed up by the brave rapists of The Religion Of Peace.....

you should still maintain enough self-respect to refrain from saying things like, "2 of them showed their respect to me doggystyle."

what is it about moonbats and low self-esteem? someone should look into this.

Posted by: nom de guerre at June 9, 2009 2:24 PM

So V the K, are saying to me that it is perfectly reasonable to deduce, from a few snippets of a quote with no supporting context, something that flies in the face of normal human reasoning?

If this Ghazi Gul is the one who raped her, sure she's crazy. But I'm not about make those assumptions based on the little snippits quoted in the original post.

Posted by: Brandon at June 9, 2009 2:29 PM

Or, apparently, quoted from her own book and interviews. She SAYS OUTRIGHT that he is the one who raped her.

There is an enormous amount of context and back story given as well.

Yuri Bezmonov was right:

"The process of demoralization is irreversible. A person who is demoralized can no longer see true information; the facts mean nothing to him. Even if you prove to him that white is white and black is black, he will not believe."

Posted by: The Him at June 9, 2009 2:47 PM

The Him, I am talking about the first post in this blog. I am not talking about the book or the interviews. And my first question was whether anyone went to those sources, or just made an automatic assumption.

By simply advocating a thorough examination of fact before forming an opinion I am portrayed as someone how wants to ignore the truth!

If I am to take your words at face value, I am forced to conclude that less facts = more truth to you guys.

Posted by: Brandon at June 9, 2009 2:57 PM

Okaayyy,.. now if you actually decided to READ things that people write, I quote myself from above:

"P.S. I took the five minutes necessary to read back through the links and she VERY SPECIFICALLY says that the person who raped her is the SAME MAN she thinks treated her with respect."

I did not make any automatic assumptions, but read further into it. I then saw that this post was actually (and unfortunately) on target.

I made it clear that I did so more than one time. I cannot help it if you continue to ignore the fact that I read up on the subject, and still continue to beat up on an answered question.

Click away, Brandon, this story is all over the internet. No one is stopping you from making a thorough examination of the fact, as I have done.

If I am to take your words at face value, I am forced to conclude that more facts = absolutely nothing to you.

Posted by: The Him at June 9, 2009 3:13 PM

And, no. I don't really care if you are referring to the first post or not. You have been going back and forth with me and others on this subject for several comments now. You have had the same time that I have to read up further on the subject, and get some context.

Apparently you either didn't, or did and saw that you were originally wrong, and want to argue over nonsense.

Posted by: The Him at June 9, 2009 3:19 PM

Wait, what? Where did I accuse you of not following up on the topic? Where did I say anything other than I cannot make the assumption based on the first post or pose the question of whether anyone had followed up on the post before forming opinions and making comments?

How can I have been originally wrong when my original post was a simple question?!??

You could have simply said, "I followed up on the post."

Instead you are trying to make it look like I am avoiding the truth, but nothing I said denied anything, nowhere did I indicate a belief or an opinion on the matter, other than it sounded crazy and therefore I thought I needed more information to form an opinion.

where did I write anything indicating I don't care about the facts?

why are you trying to spin a story about me when there is obviously nothing to back it up?

Posted by: Brandon at June 9, 2009 3:48 PM

Brandon, I'm starting to enjoy this a little bit. Maybe, if you are good, I'll take you under my wing and show you how to debate properly. We could take it on the road like Hannity and Colmes.

Anyway, your first post said this:

"Maybe she is totally nuts, but my first guess would be that the people who raped her are probably different individuals than the ones who she thought respected her."

After looking into it (and saying so) it turns out that you are incorrect. The people who raped her are the same people she says respected her. That's how you can be wrong, as your first post was not only a simple question, (first paragraph) but also a statement(second paragraph).

I would also like to re-iterate that I answered that simple question for you early on and then, for your benefit, provided quotes that I found to back this story up.

You have lost this battle, young padowan.

Posted by: The Him at June 9, 2009 4:07 PM

Facts are to liberals like oil is to water.

Show a liberal the truth and they'll react like Dracula being shown a mirror.

Posted by: Brandon is a pervert at June 9, 2009 4:17 PM

"So V the K, are saying to me that it is perfectly reasonable to deduce, from a few snippets of a quote with no supporting context, something that flies in the face of normal human reasoning?
"Posted by: Brandon at June 9, 2009 2:29 PM"

This "taken out of context" thing has become a bad joke!

Fine! I'll play along; THEY RAPED (HATE-F**KED) HER "OUT OF CONTEXT". Happy now?

BRANDON, you're just too TERRIFIED of being called "a racist" to face reality.

Posted by: KHarn at June 9, 2009 5:37 PM

lol, welcome to Moonbattery THE HIM, have to say I enjoyed that " educating brandum" segment meself ;)

Posted by: Anonymous at June 9, 2009 5:43 PM

Kharn, you're just playing the race card card.

Posted by: Brandon at June 9, 2009 5:45 PM

Bwandon- "Kharn, you're just playing the race card card"

Race is what much of this is about, whether you agree or not. If this skank had been kidnapped and raped by "white men" from some "right wing" group, would her pronouncements be the same? What about her femmo-lezbo "wimmins rights" allies? One thing she got correct, is that she doesn't have Stockholm Syndrome. She would have been spouting politically correct catchphrases, from the get go, to ingratiate herself. Mongoose is correct. Skeeves like this bag believe that all whites need to be eliminated, one way or another, and the West ought to be destroyed- if this means harm to themselves or their descendents, so be it. They really are not "for" anything, in particular. Destruction of what they hate is all that matters, and Jihadis will deliver what they crave. These leftists don't really care what will fill the vacuum afterwards, as long as it follows destruction of the status quo. Hence the apparently irrational attraction to Islam. Of course they would prefer a soviet style collective "utopia". But hey, the Jihadis are keen and seem more than willing to get the most important job done. So, Islam gets 2xthumbs up from these maggots. The communist force is strong in this one, as with most liberals.

Posted by: chairman soetoro's oprichniki at June 9, 2009 6:40 PM

"Kharn, you're just playing the race card card.
"Posted by: Brandon at June 9, 2009 5:45 PM"

If I had "played the race card" I would have EXCUSED the rapes by saying that it's "just part of their culture".

You ARE afraid of being called a racist, that's why you keep making excuses for these barbarians.

Posted by: KHarn at June 9, 2009 7:01 PM

They should have respected her by cutting her friggin head off.

Now, that would have been a story worth reading.

Posted by: Oiao at June 9, 2009 10:34 PM

Yes, rape now equals respect. You don't know that?? Shame on you...

Posted by: Dave M at June 10, 2009 4:36 AM

Its false to say she has Mandingo Syndrom - that only applies to well hung strapping African black men resembling Mandingo warriors. She has what I like to call Moose Limb Syndrome which is a fascination with Muslims who make Puritan men of the 1600s look like modern liberals in comparison - women with Moose Limb Syndrome love to be dominated, beaten and raped into submission then for dessert feeling their prickly brillo pad-like beards against the insides of the milky white thighs. This afflicts 75% of Dutch Women - which is why they still wear those wooden shoes.

Posted by: Dr. Sigmund Froot at June 10, 2009 5:57 AM

My woman has "Dutch Oven Syndrome" - She loves it when I fart in bed and pull the covers over her head. She says it makes her hungry.

I do this respectfully, of course.

Posted by: Pointer at June 10, 2009 7:11 AM

Love certianly isnt blind its just that moonbats are delusionary

Posted by: SPURWING PLOVER at June 10, 2009 7:44 AM