October 08, 2004

British hostage Bigley beheaded

Sad word in this morning that 62 year-old British hostage Ken Bigley, kidnapped with murdered Americans Jack Hensley and Eugene Armstrong three weeks ago, has been murdered in Iraq.

Militants in the Iraqi city of Fallujah say they believe Mr Bigley was killed on Thursday in the town of Latifiyah, 22 miles south-west of Baghdad.

A news presenter in Abu Dhabi said on television: "We have learned from informed sources in the Iraqi capital that the kidnappers of Kenneth Bigley have killed him."

The horrific alert comes just 24 hours after Iraq's interim prime minister, Ayad Allawi, said there were promising behind-the-scenes to secure Mr Bigley's release.

There are conflicting reports regarding the circumstances of Bigley's murder.
U.S. military sources told NBC News that they have reports from Iraq that Bigley might have been killed while trying to escape. The reports indicate that a number of "others" who might have been trying to help Bigley escape were also killed, the sources said.
No stills or video has been released of the decapitation by the monsters, as has been the practice in the past.

UPDATE - 12:30P ET:Reuters confirms that a videotape of Bigley's beheading exists, and they have seen it. It will be available on the web soon. I'll have links to it once it becomes available.

Bigley's brother has been quoted as saying that Prime Minister Tony Blair has his brother's "blood on his hands."

Posted by mhking at October 8, 2004 10:07 AM

Horrible as the news is, it's important to notice that he was trying to escape, and that there were others who might have been helping.

The islamofacists won't be showing that, just as they didn't show the Italian who defied them as he died.

Posted by: Fausta at October 8, 2004 10:42 AM

Reuters has seen the video. Looks like this is pretty much confirmed.

Posted by: John Little at October 8, 2004 11:09 AM

Amazingly, Reuters doesn't place the blame on Bush. Bigley's brother must be in grief, but how he can blame Blair for the actions of Islamofascist bastards is a leap o' logic.

Posted by: skh at October 8, 2004 02:52 PM

Islamo-Fascist cockroaches!!!!

Posted by: Joshua at October 8, 2004 08:19 PM

Because Britain and America could have gotten Bigley released but chose not to. quite simple really.

oh and because had it not been for Bush and Blair Bilgey would not have been in iraq in the first place nor would terrorists have been able to kidknap him.

Posted by: young-white-and-liberal at October 9, 2004 11:08 AM

Paul B has been ranting against Blair et al for some time now and has been visited by Dutch and British police. Philip B on the other hand has stated that it is not the government's fault. Paul B is involved with Stop the war as well.....hmmm. Claiming the Uk/US could have got Ken B released but choose not to shows someone has been taking the happy pills rather than writing the essay that is due next week.....nice of young-white-and-liberal to (a) call them terrorists unlike his liberal friends who call them freedom fighters and (b) imply that he is actually a racist by telling us all he is white and therefore liberal (c) Oh and young. Ageism! Shoot the young whippersnapper!

Posted by: dave t at October 9, 2004 11:37 AM

1. Am young. 21 on tuesday which i assume still makes me young.
2. Am white no way around that one.
3. Politically I am a liberal.

I see the insurgents as part freedom fighters. The people who kidknap and execute people such as Bigley and the Americans he was with are terrorists in my book. Attacking coalition soldiers who are occupying and therefore fair game is fair enough targeting civilians makes one a terrorist.

Posted by: young-white-and-liberal at October 10, 2004 04:44 PM

So you want Saddam back? Want to look at some Iraqi blogs and see that the real picture is not what wee Charlie Kennedy is telling you? As a former soldier who took part in Gulf War 1 we are not 'fair game' so I wonder what the lads from the local regiment think about you saying they were fair game when they lost two on a recent tour to your 'freedom fighters' from Iran. Oops they were in Iraq? Bad mapreading Mr Insurgent!

More of your wishy washy Liberal 'we hate the war but support our troops...?'

Posted by: dave t at October 10, 2004 06:31 PM

Unlike most Americans i meet I can make a distinction between supporting my country's troops and the war they are fighting. Most fellow Brits can also make this distinction. Seeing as you are probably no more intelligent than that post of yours here is the distinction in laymans (that means for the average bloke on the street) terms.

1. The war was wrong. There were no WMDs, no connection between Saddam and 9/11 and you were not asked in by the Iraqis, no UN security council resolution and according to international law war for regime change is illegal.

2. However if you are a member of the British Army and as far as i am aware the US Army you do not get a choice from your political masters where you go. If George W..ker Bush or To55pot Blair order you to go somewhere then off you go.

This whole liberals are against our brave boys because they are against the war is bullshit created by republicanazis like Bush to deflect public attention from his warmongering. In your case it seems to be working.

Our troops are occupiers and the Iraqis have every right to attack them. I don't like it when British troops get attacked by the populace because i do feel they could be better off without saddam and they are british, but they are occupiers and have to expect attacks. perhaps fair game was an unfortunate choice of words.

Answer me this (expecting a sensible answer is wildly optimistic but what the hey)
1776 British troops on British soil attacked by the locals. Terrorism, insurgency or legitimate protest?

Posted by: young-white-and-liberal at October 11, 2004 11:08 AM

Just for info I am currently halfway through a four year English/History (Hons) degree with Education at Stirling, a real university not the former Oxford Polytechnic....I bet you tell the girls you 'are up at Oxford' do you? I am a trained instructor, a member of the executive council of a national political party (I'll tell you which one when I see your next post), a war veteran who is 80% disabled thanks to the IRA (more of your heroes...)and a married father of three kids all older than you. Oh and I have got straight A's so far on all my semesters.....so the thick old squaddie stereotype did not work for you did it?

Amongst other things Saddam ignored 17 UN resolutions, the ISG report says Saddam had WMD and wanted to get them up and running and would have done if the sanctions had been lifted by the UN head honchos who were also gaining money (as were France and Russia etc) from the Oil for Food prog.....I also note you say nothing about the thousands killed yearly by Saddam. Will you still be saying the same if the WMD suddenly appear in downtown London having been moved via Syria for example? As I said go and look at some of the Iraqi blogs rather than Salam Pax.....you might find he was just a bit biased being the son of a Ba'ath party official....

I suppose if London does go up in smoke you and your ilk will blame anyone but the people who did it - the terrorists. Yet you'll be the first to scream for some poor soldier to die to protect you if one comes knocking on your door..... And to use the American War of Independence where Brits fought Brits as an example ! Hello! It was a civil war! I don't think somehow you are going to get a First Class in History .......there are no so blind as cannot see.....try and look at BOTH sides rather than blindly accept what you are told. I thought students were supposed to question everything ! I do and my professors love me for it and we have some great discussions about Iraq, politics and teaching.

I guess this was not a sensible answer but when you use words like Tosspot Blair and Nazi etc. you probably weren't wanting or are capable of giving one. You haven't got a bloody clue what you are talking about. Go away, do some REAL research and come back when you have a reasoned argument with evidence not ranty talking points from some PowerPoint presentation.

Posted by: dave t at October 11, 2004 04:26 PM

1. Don't say i am at oxford. I don't need to. Yes Brookes used to be Oxford Polytechnic but is now a university that was shortlisted for the Times University of the year 2003. Voted best new uni in UK for last 3 years or so and history course and dept there is rated 5 star. Stirling for the record got 5 not 5 star. for 2004 the Times League Table puts Oxford Brookes 20th in the Country for History with a 5 star rating and an overall score of 87.3. Stirling is equal 40th with 5 rating and overall score of 82.9. For the further record i obtained grade A at GCSE and grade A at A-Level. Furthermore on my synoptic A-level paper, a 2 essay question paper on nazi germany i got 100 percent amd have the slip to prove it.

2. I do not like the IRA nor do i know anyone who does. They are however a good example of why it is better to negotiate with terrorists to a point than engage in the ultimate futility trying to kill all of them.

3. In a strictly legal sense 1776 was a British civil war though as a fellow history student you would have to admit that most of the colonists fighting against Britain considered themselves American.

4. Saddam ignored 17 security council resolutions true. However we id not go to war to enforce those 17. We got ourselves 1441 which threatened him unless he allowed weapons inspectors to search for WMDs. Those inspectors found nothing and Blix's report in February 2003 while mentioning more could be done on the co-operation side, Iraq was showing a greater willingness to co-operate than before. We attacked in March 2003 because it was fast becoming obvious that had we allowed Blix and El Baradaie (can't remember how his name is spelt) time to complete the job they would have reported back what the ISG told us last week -and for the record what many liberals myself included were saying before the war and all the way up to now- and completely destroyed Bush and Blair's reason for war.

5. Can you really not see the flaw in this logic. "Saddam must be forcibly disarmed because he is a danger to us and the region." why hasn't he attacked up to now and why didn't he attack with WMDs in March 2003 "He was afraid of our response" looks to me like containment was working then.

6. If london were attacked by terrorists yes i would be a pissed as everyone else. I would however look a little bit further and ask myself WHY a terrorist felt the need to attack me and my country. Odds are it would have something to do with us screwing them somewhere along the line. People do not become terrorists for no reason.

7. I have never ever claimed to dislike soldiers. I have the utmost respect for the british army as it is the most highly trained on the planet. The soldiers in iraq are doing what they were ordered to do which is unfortunate but not their fault. my beef is with the politicians who sent them there for no reason.

8. yes 1000s per year were killed by saddam. how many iraqis have been killed in the 17 months since we invaded? have heard in the region of 10000 but not sure what total figure is. What is the magic number by the way. At what numerical point does one set of deaths become OK and another genocide or mass slaughter? Our invasion got rid of saddam yes. What will replace him? a legitimate democratic government elected by the iraqi people under electoral conditions condusive to a fair election? not any time soon. What will the US response be if the above does by some miracle happen and an iranian style theocracy is fairly elected? Will they accept it? pigs might fly.

9. If you don't like phrases such as tosspot blair and republicanazi then perhaps you might like to refrain from insulting liberals and others on here can stop using the term islamofascist.

10. If i believed everything i was told i would not be having this argument with you. I would be supporting Bush and Blair and claiming the war was right.

11. ok apologies for the thick stereotype was out of order with that one.

Posted by: young-white-and-liberal at October 12, 2004 04:40 AM

See how easy it is to actually persuade me that you have deep felt views and that you are thinking about them?

I used to live in Oxford so am glad to see that Brookes is getting better than the old days when it used to be a depository for the forerunners of the BNP Youth Wing.....

The major sticking point is STILL however that you are pesisting in woolly thinking that if we are nice to the Terrorists that they will stop everything and become our friends. They are religious fanatics and many of their leaders have said that they are not interested in negotiating but only in killing all unbelievers. I for one, whilst defending to the death if necessary your right to have your own views, will continue to be wary and take precautions to protect my family and my friends as I honestly believe that unless we destroy the Islamic fanatics (to allow the rest of the Muslim world to continue to develop) then we have no chance for a stable world. Let us not forget that they have killed far more Muslims than non-Muslims so far....and what about rights for women, children etc. Islam needs to have the equivalent of our Reformation in order to allow all her followers to become equal. So far there is little sign of this happening.

PS Read Major General Richard Holmes's latest on the War of Independence - jolly good book and continues the case made in Rebels and Redcoats off the BBC series that it was a civil war ....but let us not go there or we will be here for the next week and I have an essay on the antiwar movement during Vietnam to finish off! Cheerio and back to work I think!

Posted by: dave t at October 12, 2004 05:19 AM

i think its sick putting that video onto the net the people that put it on there need locking up

Posted by: karla palin at March 18, 2005 09:08 AM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?