[dperny]

From what I gathered, the idea was supposed to be that when fighting broke out, the hostages would know that the fighting was a rescue mission and be able to act accordingly. Imagine if there was just suddenly fighting, with no context; hostages would /know/ the FARC was on edge and would be extra careful not to try anything stupid and get killed. However, with this message, they would know that the fighting is a sign of a rescue mission and try to escape.

[lazyant]

FARC hostages had no room to act when there was fighting nearby; I read Betancourt's book about her captivity and the first thing the FARC would do is to put a gun to their heads (literally or figuratively, can't remember) with orders to execute them if the army came close.

[shutupalready]

> However, with this message, they would know that the fighting is a sign of a rescue mission and try to escape.

What makes you think that a sign of a rescue mission means that you should try to escape?

If anything, popular culture teaches exactly the opposite. Think of any Hollywood movie involving a bank robbery or hijacking. The hostages lie down and duck while the police swarm in and shoot the bad guys. The hostages do not try to escape.

I'm not saying which is better (staying put vs trying to escape), and I don't know.

I'm saying that the message--"19 people rescued. You are next. Don’t lose hope"--is useless and open to whatever interpretation you desire.

[hetman]

Popular culture in a country at war is probably going to somewhat differ from your personal experience where Hollywood is a primary authority on conflict. These hostages would have context you're probably missing.

[kilburn]

> What makes you think that a sign of a rescue mission means that you should try to escape?

From the article:

> Because the FARC shoots hostages dead at the first sight of a military invasion, Espejo had to convey to the captives to be ready to escape.

Bad buys at movies don't kill all hostages as soon as a cop shows up outside...

[shutupalready]

> From the article

Yes, you read the article. But the hostages didn't!

All the hostage heard is "19 people rescued. You are next. Don’t lose hope". How does a hostage conclude "you should try to escape" from the preceding message?

[kilburn]

The hostages were mainly soldiers of the colombian army who had been fighting against the FARC's guerrilla tactics for a long time. There are many hostages, held at different locations throughout the jungle by different captors. And they just know better than you and me, no need to read any article.

Now, the message is not a call to direct action because there is no possible action that would benefit all hostages getting it. It's just providing them hope and information (we're busting our assess off on active operations, so if something makes you think we're coming or around, there's actually a good chance we are). Do as you see fit if/when that happens.

Also, your whole reasoning is fairly solid, but you are building it on top of a wrong context. The hostages are not the average american and the captors are not the bad guys from a movie. Your popular culture is wildly different than the cultures of the involved parties. You should get that straight before making any reasoning using your own context instead.