October 12, 2004

YOU CAN ALWAYS TAKE ONE WITH YOU

Mark Steyn -- in a piece the Daily Telegraph declined to publish -- offers sound, if challenging, advice:

If you’re kidnapped, accept you’re unlikely to survive, say "I'll show you how an Englishman dies", and wreck the video. If they want you to confess you’re a spy, make a little mischief: there are jihadi from Britain, Italy, France, Canada and other western nations all over Iraq – so say yes, you’re an MI6 agent, and so are those Muslims from Tipton and Luton who recently joined the al-Qaeda cells in Samarra and Ramadi. As Churchill recommended in a less timorous Britain: You can always take one with you. If Mr Blair and other government officials were to make that plain, it would be, to use Mr Bigley’s word, "enough". A war cannot be subordinate to the fate of any individual caught up in it.

And, if you don’t want to wind up in that situation, you need to pack heat and be prepared to resist at the point of abduction. I didn’t give much thought to decapitation when I was mooching round the Sunni Triangle last year, but my one rule was that I was determined not to get into a car with any of the locals and I was willing to shoot anyone who tried to force me. If you’re not, you shouldn't be there.

Ken Bigley was reportedly dismissive of any kidnap concerns:

While many contractors employ heavily-armed security guards, Mr Bigley and his two colleagues preferred to adopt a low-key existence. They lived in a two-storey house in the al-Mansour area of Baghdad and were taken to work by unarmed local drivers in 4x4 vehicles.

Their neighbours were concerned: "Two weeks ago, I told him: Why are you here? It's dangerous. There are kidnappers," one said. But Mr Bigley was not deterred. "I'm not afraid - you only die once," was his reply. He had joked that he was too old for kidnappers to bother with.

Posted by Tim Blair at October 12, 2004 01:48 PM
Comments

I've always thought that the best way to go down is shouting "Mecca Delenda Est!" at the top of your lungs as they slit your throat - the advantage being that they probably won't know what it means and will release the tape anyway.

Posted by: Jorge at October 12, 2004 at 02:10 PM

"pack heat and be prepared to resist at the point of abduction".

Exactly what should have been done.

Posted by: Lofty at October 12, 2004 at 02:13 PM

Theres a great tale from WWII about a Kiwi fighter squadron who overhear one of their comrades in the middle of a fight against a group of Japanese. The pilot is screaming and yelling and going on over the radio when one of the pilots responds:

"I say old man, why dont you just be quiet and die like a man"

Posted by: Frank Martin at October 12, 2004 at 02:15 PM

what does "Mecca Delenda Est" mean?

Posted by: steve at October 12, 2004 at 03:19 PM

Always amazed by the lobotomized sports persons who engage in round the world boat trips without radios or climb everest in gym shoes, or wander into the simpson dessert with leaking radiators.
And then there's people who wander around jihad strongholds without ......
At least the forst lot can be rescued at public expense i suppose.

Posted by: davo at October 12, 2004 at 03:21 PM

Mecca delenda est - Mecca must be destroyed!

A good idea would be for Westerners in Iraq to wear a suicide belt at all times - the fuckers would have second thoughts about their abductions then!

Posted by: munchman at October 12, 2004 at 03:45 PM

Once again, Steyn is the voice of pragmatic, no-bullshit reason. The man is a treasure.

Too bad Britannia is too "cool" now to publish what would have once gotten a "hear! hear!" from the average Brit (not that our pussified US media would embrace his sentiments, either.)

Posted by: Dave S. at October 12, 2004 at 03:52 PM

The word I am getting through work channels (from people in Iraq) is that these guys ignored basic security precautions. There's sympathy for an undeserved fate at the hands of Islamofascist terrorists, but not a lot of pity. More along the lines of "Don't let this happen to you!"

Posted by: The Real JeffS at October 12, 2004 at 04:24 PM

To achieve something with one's life, versus to retire at any price to pampered dotage in Northern Thailand. The choice should have been clear.

Bigsley had one of the world's most vicious murderers standing next to him. Why not try to kill him? I'm thinking of the bravery of the passengers on the 4th 9/11 plane.

Hedonistic collapse of western culture and cowardly collaboration with its enemies are combined in this case.

What to speak of what we Aussies refer to as 'Whingeing Poms'! (Sorry to the brave Brits!)

Posted by: Om at October 12, 2004 at 04:26 PM

I've done what Bigsley did. Gone into global troublespots at some risk. I was on the Air India 747 'Kanishka' going to the strife-torn Subcontinent in 1985, a few weeks before it was blown to tiny pieces by a terrorist bomb over the Irish Sea. I arrived in Calcutta, where several young Australians dressed like me, had been torn to pieces, murdered, in the streets a few months before. Did I expect the Aus govt to come and save me if I got into trouble? Absolutely not!

Posted by: Om at October 12, 2004 at 04:40 PM

Correction: Actually they did hire security, I think that it turned out to be Mohammed's sister's brother-in-law or something, Anyway, this miserable s.o.b didn't show up for work on this particular night and all three unfortunate men went to bed anyway. Can you believe it? Shit, I would have sat up all night, armed to the teeth, either that or headed straight to the damn Green Zone. But they went to bed!The only way that I would go to work in Iraq would be if I had a 24 hour armed guard of ex special forces, Brits, US or Aussies....
What a lousy stinking way to die.

Posted by: diana at October 12, 2004 at 05:29 PM

It is tragic when the inexperienced bet their lives on DIY risk assessment.
Doubly tragic when in probability had the group merely carried visible firearms they would have been passed over for easier pickings.

Posted by: TT at October 12, 2004 at 06:28 PM

Go Green-PLANT A BUSH IN THE WHITE HOUSE-

THEN ROLL- HUNT THEM DOWN TO THE LAST DOG- IF IT MEANS BLOWING UP EVERY BLOODY HOUSE AND MOSQUE IN BAGHDAD, FALUJA AND TIKRIT- CHEAPER TO REBUILD AND MAKE THESE KALISHNAKOV CARRYING KILLERS DO THE REBUILDING OF WHAT IS DESTROYED - THEN KILL THEM- PREFERABLY MAKE ONE OF THEIR OWN DO THE JOB , (THE SAME AS THEY SAW FIT FOR BIGLEY )TO TRY TO SAVE HIS OWN- THEY ARE SUCH COWARDS MANY ARE HEROIN ADDICTS, OFFER THEM ENOUGH FREE DOPE UNTIL JOB COMPLETE THEN GIVE A FATAL LAST DOSE. FORGET ANY SENSITIVITY - THEY'LL GET OVER IT WHEN THE MONEY STARTS ROLLING IN.
London , Coventry,Dresdon and Berlin all rebuilt thei cathedrals

Posted by: Rose at October 12, 2004 at 07:02 PM

Go Green-PLANT A BUSH IN THE WHITE HOUSE-

THEN ROLL- HUNT THEM DOWN TO THE LAST DOG- IF IT MEANS BLOWING UP EVERY BLOODY HOUSE AND MOSQUE IN BAGHDAD, FALUJA AND TIKRIT- CHEAPER TO REBUILD AND MAKE THESE KALISHNAKOV CARRYING KILLERS DO THE REBUILDING OF WHAT IS DESTROYED - THEN KILL THEM- PREFERABLY MAKE ONE OF THEIR OWN DO THE JOB , (THE SAME AS THEY SAW FIT FOR BIGLEY )TO TRY TO SAVE HIS OWN- THEY ARE SUCH COWARDS MANY ARE HEROIN ADDICTS, OFFER THEM ENOUGH FREE DOPE UNTIL JOB COMPLETE THEN GIVE A FATAL LAST DOSE. FORGET ANY SENSITIVITY - THEY'LL GET OVER IT WHEN THE MONEY STARTS ROLLING IN.
London , Coventry,Dresdon and Berlin all rebuilt their cathedrals

Posted by: Rose at October 12, 2004 at 07:02 PM

Yep nuc em

Posted by: Le clerc at October 12, 2004 at 07:52 PM

Nuke them fast and nuke them now...

Posted by: GeorgeBushisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimANYWAY.com at October 12, 2004 at 08:37 PM

Well, this thread sure turned LGF-ish, and that's not a compliment...

Posted by: PW at October 12, 2004 at 09:03 PM

We are all aware of the Bigel option, I myself wouldn't advocate it unless the situation were truly dire but Steyn is right on the money - it's not what you feel, its what your going to do about it.

Fight or Die - simple as that.

Posted by: JBB at October 12, 2004 at 09:12 PM

Well, this thread sure turned LGF-ish, and that's not a compliment...

LOL LETS NUKE 'EM!!!!!!

Uh...sorry.

Posted by: Quentin George at October 12, 2004 at 10:40 PM

What would you have us do, PW?

'Negotiate' with the vermin? Or try to 'understand' them?

Perhaps this thread has turned 'LGF-ish' because any human being in his or her right mind is morally outraged by these savages and the deluded dhimmis who support them.

Perhaps people are just a bit annoyed at the sight of a terrified man being slaughtered by a bunch of capering apes.

How much does it take to make you angry?

Posted by: dee at October 12, 2004 at 10:43 PM

By contrast with the Fleet Street-Scouser-Whitehall fiasco of the last three weeks, consider Fabrizio Quattrocchi, murdered in Iraq on April 14th. In the moment before his death, he yanked off his hood and cried defiantly, “I will show you how an Italian dies!” He ruined the movie for his killers. As a snuff video and recruitment tool, it was all but useless, so much so that the Arabic TV stations declined to show it.

i hope that i could show such courage. this is a man to be honored.

Posted by: Mr. Bingley at October 12, 2004 at 10:49 PM

Yes not enough has been made of fabrizio's last stand.
The man was a hero. RIP.
I hope we will all soon hear "Al Zarqawi in tres partes divisum est" and i hope one our boys does it.
much better than Mecca delenda est.

Posted by: davo at October 12, 2004 at 11:26 PM

That should be:

"Al Zarqawi in tres partes dividendus est."

Latin: B-
Sentiment: H1

Posted by: lucius at October 13, 2004 at 12:36 AM

I'm not speaking for PW, but I thought that post was rather noxious, too, so I'll answer for myself:

>What would you have us do, PW?
>'Negotiate' with the vermin? Or
>try to 'understand' them?

No, we should kill them. But taking out ten (or twenty, or a hundred) innocent people for each scumbag you get doesn't really work for me.

>Perhaps this thread has turned
>'LGF-ish' because any human
>being in his or her right mind
>is morally outraged by these
>savages and the deluded dhimmis
>who support them.

I'm all for moral outrage, until it takes the form of "kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out." God knows I've felt it myself, but it ain't right.

>How much does it take to make
>you angry?

I'm sure PW is as angry as you and I, and wishes swift and certain retribution on the scum. I'd just prefer not to incinerate children to do it.

Posted by: Dave S. at October 13, 2004 at 01:55 AM

No need for nukes. Very controversial, but this is how you get rid of the low lifes.

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Announcement/Pershing.htm

Posted by: Lofty at October 13, 2004 at 07:08 AM

Drooling angry nuke humpers bring more drooling angry ABB tree-humping left-wing trolls to the threads. I don't like that. Please heed the rational words of PW and Dave S and stop being drooling angry nuke humpers.

I want total victory, dead terrorists, democracy in the Mid East and toppled dictators as much as the next RWDB, but spewy all-caps rants about exterminating everyone give ME a headache too.

Posted by: Sortelli at October 13, 2004 at 08:43 AM

Nuke 'em, sure. But only if the nuke-'em advocates agree to each ride a bomb down while waving a cowboy hat around their heads and screaming "Yeehaah!" like Slim Pickens. Remember, if you're gonna do it, do it with style.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at October 13, 2004 at 09:32 AM

No one said kill them all or all Iraquis-READ- kill all the killers- there has been too much bending backwards and trying to acommodate these evil subhuman scum.
If they hide in Mosques the people know who to blame when they are leveled- the mosques that is.
I am ANGRY -you bet - tried smelling the roses , prayed quietly every day since 9/11- Bali Darfor Rawanda -Beslan what doe PW suggest now- God is not listening but Satan guiding Islanm is very actively.
If they leveled all the slums they could clear the 'Rats' nests of terrorists and weapons caches-they would be employed for years rebuilding better more modern and sanitary cities that Sadr City- what useful suggestions can you came up with

Posted by: Rose at October 13, 2004 at 11:56 AM

One of the morale high grounds from the invasion of Iraq is the minimum of non-combatant casualties, thanks to precision guided munitions, highly accurate targeting systems, and highly trained soldiers.

Professional military personnel do not like killing non-combatants. That's because the mission is to kill the enemy, not to slaughter the innocent (i.e., unarmed) civilians , even if they are from the enemy country. Killing non-combatants lowers you to the level of the enemy. There is no justification for that, even if you are fighting savages and barbarians.

Which we are, as you "nuke em!" folks might recall.

Think upon it, before you advocate incinerating whole cities whose only "crime" is being a major religious institution....even if the Islamofascists use it as a rallying point.

Better to kill the terrorists by the truckload on the battlefield. Then you can "negotiate" with those who stayed home.

Posted by: The Real JeffS at October 13, 2004 at 11:58 AM

What would you have us do, PW?

'Negotiate' with the vermin? Or try to 'understand' them?

I presume you're relatively new around Spleenville, or you'd hardly accuse me of being a defeatist.

Oddly enough, I've been concerned about terrorism for longer than probably many people who only discovered their righteous anger about this menace after September 11th. Over here in Europe (well, as much as I can say "over here", since I'm in the U.S. right now), we've had low-level and not-so-low-level terror incidents for decades. Heck, the unlamentedly departed former government of my birth country (East Germany) supported the Red Army Faction and various Palestinian terror groups.

After the initial sheer numbness from witnessing 9/11 had passed, my first thought was, "well, maybe that'll finally make America and Americans wake up and take note of terrorism". Extremely self-serving in hindsight, admittedly, but that's how I felt at the time. (I wasn't actually on board with Bush's strategy of dealing with it at first, until I saw just who was objecting to it on the international scene...thanks UN Security Council members! Your incessant whining made me realize that Dubya must be on the right track.)

So, after that much exposition, I'd just like to say, yes, I'm angry about terror, damn angry. And I'm saddened that so many people just don't seem to realize the true situation. (Least of all John F'n Kerry..."nuisance"? That assessment might fly in Europe where soft power is the only power anyone can seem to think of. Go run for Prez of France after Chirac retires, you moron.)

As for why I'm objecting to idiotic "nuke 'em all" talk, Dave S made the point much better than I could have phrased it. I can certainly understand the sentiment, but it's really just mirroring the anti-war left. For them, it's "this has gone on too long - let's cut and run". For the nukers, it's "this has gone on too long - let's nuke 'em all and get it over with already". I'd prefer not to see large swaths of the planet turned into glass parking lots and millions of people incinerated because the War on Terror couldn't be won quickly enough for some people.

/rant

Posted by: PW at October 13, 2004 at 01:15 PM

Off topic. Can someone please explain to me why when I attmpt to link info it always turns to crap? My example below. Thanks in advance.

Pershing.

Posted by: Lofty at October 13, 2004 at 04:22 PM

Lofty, the link works for me. Looks like you did this one right.

Posted by: The Real JeffS at October 13, 2004 at 04:34 PM

Nucs are for the movies.
Nice bang but little positive tactical result on mixed battlefields, many secondary effects.
High value targeting is much more effective.
The Israelis have it nearly kicked to death, they run the most sophisticated system of attack possible. Consider the problems of designating an amorphous moving car among many. There have been a few misses but they have never fired on a miss ident.
Three ways only to do this, all are very slick.

Not possible for US in Iraq due to no Mossad.

Posted by: TT at October 13, 2004 at 05:26 PM

then again, most reputable armed forces, US, UK, Poland, etc etc don't embed themselves amongst children

so where does it end?

they keep killing, we keep refusing to respond because they are embedding with their progeny?

their soon-to-be-indoctrinated-to-evil progeny?

Posted by: ilibcc at October 14, 2004 at 12:10 AM