Bigley did try to escape, with the help of an accomplice. And just because he said those things does not mean he believed them. Whether to immediately resist or whether to bide your time and strategically grovel are not always cut and dried decisions. India had do to all kinds of humiliating crap to secure the release of three of their hostages, but eventually three people are alive today because of it. Terrorists hijacked an Indian plane in Kandahar. One Indian male was killed in the plane. Eventually the government released three terrorists from jail, and the other 90-some passengers were released unharmed. Jesse Jackson secured the lives of US servicemen from Milosevic. Either you have to keep the bastards talking, or you have to go balls out to try to find the terrorists hideout, and then to kill them. It is intolerable to do neither. And Fabrizio Quattrocchi is a great man.

I'm not going to sit here at my desk and judge the behavior of someone taken hostage in a war zone. Sorry.

praktike,

True re. not being quick to judge the conduct of a person in a horrible and impossible situation, especially since what we "know" is usually stage-managed by the murderers. But this case involves not just Bigley, but the behavior of many people connected with the event: his brother and other family members, Straw, Blair, Fleet Street, British Muslim organizations.

We can compare the choices made by Bigley, the Italian "Simone" duo, Quattrocchi, and others. More than that--since it was the murderous pipers playing the tune--there are instructive comparisons to be made about the choices made by family and institutions. And how would I do, or my family, in a comparable situation? I hope to never find out. But in a world where the next Beslans are certainly in the advanced-planning stages, these are the questions that our Civilization is tasked with answering.

I am glad that Steyn and Wretchard spoke out. These things ought to be said, and discussed.

Joe, "Not only is it impossible to put a rational construction on these events, it is a waste of time to try."
Not true! Hostage taking is a predictable and time honoured tactic. Also any tribe members are equally valued in warfare. A grandmother is the equivalent of a warrior or a child, because each had a unique tribal function. That is why terrorists are able to easily justify killing non-combatants. Like Mary Cheney (sorry for snark) the Beslan children and Bigley were "fair game".
It is a mistake not to analyse avaiable data. Perhaps if our analysists understood these concepts we could be better prepared for the next event.

I'm having trouble imagining how one could crawl lower than criticizing the behavior of hostages facing death.

Heavy, heavy odds that Steyn cries for his mother when he has an infected hangnail.

Right on. I thought of this a while ago, and came up exactly with what Stein writes there. Every word right on money. Either be ready, or don't go there. The Italian guy was great; that's how you do it if your fate catches up with you, so to speak. That is, how you hope you'll be able to do it. Which, too, is what Stein says. A good article.

Every hostage killed on tape after the Italian security guy has been drugged.

The time to fight is during the hostage taking. If you cannot escape. Make them kill you.

Better to die on your feet than be drugged and made a human sacrifice for a al-Qaeda recruitment snuff video.

"Bigley thought he was too old; the schoolchildren in Beslan thought they were too young; the French journalists thought they were too French to be the victims of terrorism. And they were wrong. Wrong because they assumed that enemy intent rather than capability was the limiting factor to their mayhem."

I'll say what I said in the thread at the Belmont Club: leave the children of Beslan, and infants slaughtered in other outrages, out of that, please.

An eighteen-month old child being repeatedly bayoneted by a gleeful Muslim, to take one example from a litany of horror fit to bear comparison with worst of Nazi death camps in intensity of evil though not in numbers, is not to be assumed to be complacent about his or her safety under the influence of his or her purported incorrect views on the nexus of enemy intent and capability in 21st Century terrorism.

Wretchard seemed incapable of understanding this, or alternately of expressing himself in a way I could make sense of. One of us was completely missing the point there.

You, Joe, can understand very well, and speak plainly. So I suggest you drop that.

I'm not kidding. This is not right.

Also, what Trent Telenko said make sense.

But only for able adults, not as a moral demand to be placed upon children, who have in many cases not even reached an age of understanding, let alone effective action.

I'll try again, double-barrelled, since I had to give up on Wretchard.

"... the schoolchildren in Beslan thought they were too young ..."

(1) This statement is in an unknowably but certainly large number of cases, especially regarding the youngest children, simply false. It is also morally obtuse, and inflammatory to an extraordinary degree.

(2) Try to remember your thoughts on your first ever day at school. Were you smugly thinking that it couldn't happen to you, because you were too young? Or were you occupied with no such thoughts at all, because you were thinking only of the things young children think of, because you were only a child?

Great Zeus, that someone should have to spell this out!

This pseudo-tough-guy right-wing attitudinising has gotten way out of hand. :(

Trent is spot on. This is a WAR! Western workers in the ME should be appraised of the true situation before accepting employment. What we know about Terrorist Doctrine should be made available to them.
Like I said before, terrorist tactics are analyzable. We have to get serious, this is not just a nuisance, and the terrorists are not insane or irrational. They have well defined goals and plans to achieve them. Pretending we can't understand what they're after does no good at all.

David Blue, I agree that the children are innocent. I've read your posts on Beslan, and I know your heart is wracked over what happened. But you and Wretchard are just the same. He was terribly moved by Beslan. I think he wrote six posts on it, some twice in one day, and they all made me cry. I think he is just trying to say what I'm saying, we can't assume anyone is safe. And neither can we throw up our hands and say it is not understandable. All human behavior is understandable. And, at some level, predictable.

Strange, but little-known fact: Many contractors and government employees in Iraq, including all of those employed by Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown and Root that I saw, are prohibited from carrying personal defense weapons.

Having read Steyn's piece, I would say I agree with parts of the sentiment and reasoning, but I can also undertand why the Telegraph spiked the story.
The sardonic way he expresses his opinion would be unacceptable to any British newspaper; certainly at this time, so soon after the man's death and in the midst of his familys grief.
Would similar comments have been accepted in an American paper about an American hostage - and if now, would they have been pre-9/11?

Starting with Billy Connolly's smartcrack was a mistake. Connolly was mistaken to make it, Steyn is mistaken to re-use it.

I might hope to make an end with more dignity and defiance than Mr Bigley, but I still fear that I might not. We do not know how those evil bastards arranged events and manipulated and terrorised that man.
It is difficult to imagine the man's state of mind after the torment he likely went through. If Mark Steyn is confident he would do better, well, I envy him his assurance.

The phrase about Liverpool going into "Dianysian emotional masturbation over some deceased prodigal" is offensive, plain and simple.
Repeat that line in a Scouse pub and you'd be very lucky to exit intact at any time.
Right now Steyn would be lucky to exit alive. Seriously.
Packing heat or not.

Liverpudlians, are, and always have been, clannish, emotional, communal, tribal about such things. Speaking as a Midlander who lived on Merseyside for several years, their responses to such things are not those of Middle England; not worse, not better, just different. And that does NOT mean they are either hysterical or defeatist.

This is not (or at least not just) BBC-style "feel the feelings" phoniness. And it's hardly their fault that the BBC, and other media chooses to use it in that context.
I dislike - no, loathe - phony media mawkishness as much as almost anyone. But Scousers ARE different.
(And if my experience is any guide, what most of them likely want now is not to blame the government, or even justice, but VENGEANCE, and to send the King's Regiment to Fallujah.)

While sending a Secretary of State to comisserate with the family may be a mistake (I think it is), Steyn's comments on Paul Bigley are simply not appropriate while the family is in mourning.

Regarding the rumoured 'feelers' put out by the Foreign Office to Zaqarwi's group, this would fit with denial of negotiation IF the FO were
a) trying to suborn one of the group
b) attempting to gain intel for an operation
What WAS happening cannot yet be certain. Steyn is being premature.
IF he is correct in his suspicion, I would condemn the government for it. But at present all of it is just speculation.

Some friends and I were talking about this last weekend, largely because one is an Army sergeant being posted to Iraq next week.
Our conclusions (not knowing about the Steyn article): if you're taken, you're a dead man; public agonising is wrong and worthless; the media treatment of all this is fundamentally and dangerously misjudged; no F***ING negotiations; go armed- you may as well die on your feet and take some with you.

I hope I could live up to that. It's easy to talk, less easy in a situation of terminal mortal peril I have never experienced, and hope I never will.

(Though as regards Sgt. J. I'm fairly confident; in addition to other things, he intends to carry a rather non-regulation cut-down shotgun at all times: "I'm going to sleep with that babe.")

As for the appropriate British response, one Liverpudlian of my aquaintance put it this way:
"One day we'll find you, 'When your fear cometh as desolation, and your destruction cometh as a whirlwind'."

The most important rule for would-be hostages is Never Go To Crime Scene B.

Crime Scene A is where the kidnappers try and grab you. No matter how many machineguns they have, always resist maximally here.

Crime Scene B is where the body parts are dumped. Your odds at Crime Scene B are very bad.

So go ahead and give them your wallet, but if they want you to get in the car, run like hell. Maybe they'll have bad aim.

Hi, jinnderella.

I said repeatedly at the Belmont Club that I accepted Wretchard's remarks were perfectly innocent. I meant what I said, that was not some sort or rhetorical manoeuvre. This was and is some sort of bizarre misunderstanding. Wretchard is a good guy, not a bad guy.

And I agree that on a vast range of issues not too far from this we would find ourselves in agreement.

And I accept that I an a little toey over Beslan. Somehow that horror really, really got under my skin, and that is permanent.

But all that still leaves me with my views.

That statement is nether necessary nor wise. It is wrong. People repeating and endorsing it are adding to the error.

Also I think the tough guy stuff, starting with Steyn, is being overdone.

T. J. Madison, terrific advice.

Would you agree that children should be trained to do this? Since we can think of no other real solution to a platoon-sized genocidal attack on, say, a kindergarten?

That seems to me to be the only possible option: teach them to flee like newly hatched turtles from hungry birds.

David Blue... I think your criticism of Wretchard is correct. Attributing a mental error like this to a child is objectively wrong, and you're right to point that out.

A far better formulation might be: "The Russians thought the children of Beslan were too young."

Klaatu... prohibited from carrying personal defense weapons? That's more than strange, it borders on insane. Who's the freakin' genius who thought THAT one up - and why?

Roublen... Fabrio IS a great man. India needs to think how many others died because it released the terrorists to purchase the lives of 3. Agree that you have to keep the bastards talking AND go balls out to find the terrorists - but as long as you're going to keep them talking, take Steyn's advice and make mischief along the way. And when they come to saw off your head, take his advice again ruin the snuff film so Arab TV networks can't get off on it. Whether we pass the test at the moment is always a question, but the intent and goal should be commonly understood. Needs to be, in fact, in order to reduce the tactic's effectiveness and thus its toll.

Trent... drugged? Hmm, missed that one. But it is a good way to prevent escape, I suppose. If true, it also reduces our ability to make judgements about observed behaviour - though Steyn's point is still applicable to its original target, which is the Foreign Service Office and the advice it should give in advance.

John Farren... agree that starting with the Billy Connally quote probably gets the column spiked all by itself. That was definitely poor taste, and worse. If it wasn't so dated, it would be in today's "classless" post - but then, Billy C's whole act is based on the lack thereof. Usually, he's crass but funny. This time, no class AND no humour.

The rest of your points are great, too, especially the Midlander English stuff but really all of it is intelligent and elevates the discussion. Thanks.

Wow. What Joe said. :)
See, David Blue? I have flashes, but Joe sees the Plans. :-)

Hi, jinn.

Joe, I don't know the victims were drugged, but I watched the videos enough times (more than enough times) to automatically nod my head when someone said that. Yup, that's what it looks like to me.

If you look at the history of human sacrifice (which is an interesting topic) I think this is much more Muslim than classical/generic.

From way back, people have drugged human sacrifices, because this sacrifice is so important that nothing can be allowed to muck it up. What you might call stagecraft is a big deal, particularly with infant sacrifices, as at Carthage - the parents are still going to be members of the community and often very senior ones, and you can be sure they'll remember that day and whether it was a shambles or not. The gods are even more picky. Particularly when the sacrifice is voluntary and that's key, having the sacrifice chime in as the ceremony reaches its climax to say: "hey, I've changed my mind!" is not acceptable. So you dope the sacrifices with whatever your culture has, even just a mouthful of wine. (Particularly if the sacrifice is supposed to be voluntary, but there were no volunteers, and we caught this non-member-of-the-tribe instead. Anyone can look "willing" dosed up enough.)

Modern Muslim terrorists also go in for big displays, video (Beslan etc.) and so on. Stagecraft is critical to them, even in the most practical terms. These are recruitment videos. They don't want this to be mucked up. So: people always re-invent the classic ways of doing these things. Guaranteed.

So much for mechanics. But on the understanding of what is happening in the sacrifice, this is absolutely pure Islam, not classical/pagan at all. There is no sense of giving something great and beautiful in return for something big, no selection of physically perfect sacrifices, no divinisation of the gift/giver/victim, zero. The victims are dressed in special distinctive clothes, but it's about shaming, humiliation, revenge and so on, not wrapping a gift.

Modern Muslim human sacrifice is a theatrical development of pure, classical Muslim head-cutting, as demonstrated by the prophet and his followers, in the Koran, in Muslim law, accompanied by Muslim religious talk and so on. The sacrifice is not going to the gods, remaining with the community in another form or whatever, they are being violently despatched to an eternity of even more violent punishment for being an infidel. Allah does not love those who deny Him, and the terrorists sure as Hades don't either.

It would be better I think not to be part of that. Mowed down in the street is a much nicer death. (Crime scene A, not crime scene B.) But you don't always get a choice.

Drifting slightly from the topic there.

Anyway, yes I agree, if the claim was that the Russians unconsciously assumed that there was some sort of limit to what would be done to/with their/Ossetian children, I would have no problem with that. We do have natural tacit assumptions about how people, even bad people, will behave, and the terrorists do consistently violate them.

>>We do have natural tacit assumptions about how people, even bad people, will behave, and the terrorists do consistently violate them.

These natural assumptions are wrong generally, not just about terrorists. Seemingly nice people can easily be led to commit horrible atrocities, as I've pointed out here over (and over, and over again.)

The terrorists are human beings, just like the rest of us. They are scary and dangerous and probably need to be killed, but compared to cancer, heart disease, and the Red Army (past and present) they just aren't that big a deal. Peak Oil, in particular, is far more important, with or without the terrorist threat to the oil supply.

Threats like Beslan and kidnapping are best dealt with by having an armed population. Not everyone can be a Bruce Willis action hero, but with enough civilians armed and trained, the odds start to tip in favor of the citizenry.

TJ Madison (5:53am) wrote:
compared to cancer, heart disease, and the Red Army (past and present) [terrorists] just aren't that big a deal.

I think this view is grossly mistaken, with the exception of the Red Army comparison. Cancer and heart disease are examples of "bad things that happen." Because they are bad, we wish that their frequencies were lower than they are, however low or high they might currently be. But they are not the results of the application of human intelligence, planning, ingenuity, and foresight. We can make quite accurate estimates of morbidity and mortality due to cancer and heart disease for 2005, 2010, and 2020. And of their impacts on our society and civilization.

Care to make the equivalent predictions, and properly justify the the equivalent confidence intervals, for militant Islam? Care to claim that the economic and spiritual and psychological impacts will be similar?

This line of reasoning strikes me as the product of wishful "September 10" thinking.

Peak Oil, in particular, is far more important.

Concern about world oil production and demand are well-placed. The trends in maximum possible annual oil production--peaking, then shortly starting to decline--are pretty scary in their implications. Maybe that can be the subject of a separate post.

Joe, it was not a CPA or US Govt policy. As far as that goes, there were no rules on weapons.

It was the corporate policy of KBR and some departments of the USG.

KBR prohibited its employees from carrying weapons. They had to rely on military or other contracted security to move. When they moved, they were unarmed. There may have been exceptions, but I didn't see them.

Others could carry whatever weapons they could procure.

I know people who bought weapons, including a H&K MP5.

Here is evidence of drug use, as Trent Telenko said. Thanks to Junkyard Blog.

T. J. Madison: "Threats like Beslan and kidnapping are best dealt with by having an armed population."

Ossetians are an armed population. Did you not see this in the pictures?