That is a fascinating dissertation, and I find some aspects of it to be rational and well-founded. Other aspects of it smack far too much of the "she was asking for it" defense that has been used in so many rape cases.
It may be that, at his age, having devoted his entire life to preserving his country's heritage, that he voluntarily chose to die
in the ancient city which he loved because he would not want to live in a world where it had been destroyed. Or he may have
thought that the government's forces would prevail, or he just may have been a slow runner. I don't know and I'm not sure
anyone outside Syria does. But I am not going to dismiss him as a fool, as you seem so eager to do.
There is an old story that when the Visigoths were sacking and burning Rome, they came to the villa of a wealthy Roman senator.
They found him still seated in his curule chair, watching as his screaming servants were dragged outside to be raped and his
household treasures were plundered or destroyed. Staring straight ahead, he sat there, unmoving, until finally one of the Visigoths
reached out and touched his beard to see if he was, in fact, alive. The Senator struck the invader with the flat of his hand, as hard
as he could, and the barbarians immediately descended upon him and cut him to pieces. Was his conduct foolish or brave? It depends on what his goal was. If self-preservation was his motive, it was an epic fail. If making a statement of Roman dignity
and courage was his motive, he gave a magnificent demonstration.