Hacker News Reader

>19 people rescued. You're next. Don't lose hope.

Me : I think it should mean, you might be the next to be rescued.

>If this message had any tangible effect, why aren't there any first hand accounts from the hostages explaining what they did differently as a result of hearing the message?

From the article : In his military psychological evaluation, Col. Espejo says that the soldier spoke of hearing "the code hidden in the song," and revealed how the message was passed from soldier to soldier. The song was even enjoyed by the FARC, who were oblivious to its secret message. "It makes me very happy to think of the hostages listening to our song," Ortiz says.

From the article : Someone who is a hostage, for over a decade, would think there is still hope. But I too find the article lacking in this.

> who understood it were some of the hostages? This just proves the point that it's un-actionable.

From the article : Operation Chameleon — a sixth-month operation that involved 300 government soldiers and secret raids. Because the FARC shoots hostages dead at the first sight of a military invasion.

From the article : Espejo reasoned, "The FARC were peasants from the fields, they wouldn’t know [Morse].

> But they're trying to make it sound like a big intelligence or military coup, which it is not.

Me : No, they are not. It's an extension of Operation Chameleon - That's what I think.

> If the government claimed that the message was simply a way to make the hostages keep up hope, then OK.

Me : Exactly, but it's an understatement. For those who are suffering, this news would mean a world to them.

> Me : I think it should mean, you might be the next to be rescued.

But what specifically would you have done differently if you were a hostage and had received this message? Don't answer, "I'd keep up hope." "Not losing hope" is not an action.

The message has no particular call to action. That's my main point. My second point is that even if you named some specific action you'd take, someone else would have had a different idea because it's so vague.

A compassionate message could mean the world to a hostage. That's true. But a compassionate message and a useful message are not the same thing.

As far as I understand, this messages was used in conjunction with Operation Chameleon. On it's own this message wasn't supposed to do anything, but it had to be discrete because this operation was clandestine.

The goal was to give them hope. That's the point. To let them know that there is help on the way, but there in't no accurate account by how far.

The `action` here is the Operation Chameleon, which is a secret.

> Me : I think it should mean, you might be the next to be rescued.

You are entirely right. The original message is in spanish, where "you" (singular) is different than "you" (plural). The form used in the message is the plural one. Now it's clear that your interpretation is the correct one ;)

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.

> 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.

> 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...

> 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?

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.

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.

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.

That's exactly what I thought. When I read the translation I thought they were telling the hostages to not get into trouble so that they would not be chained up to a tree by their neck or otherwise handicapped. If I was in that situation I would have interpreted the exact opposite of the messages.

As your interpretation, it is a sign that your time as a hostage might come to an end, because something might happen, as it happened to other 19 hostages.

And that `goodness` is what this message is all about.