TALKS TO FREE FRENCH HOSTAGES 'BOGGED DOWN'
PARIS, Dec 21 (AFP) - Talks to free two French journalists, who were abducted in Iraq exactly four months ago, are making no headway, the media watchdog group Reporters without Borders (RSF) said Tuesday."Despite laudable efforts by French diplomats, it looks like there is nothing new," said RSF secretary general Robert Menard in an interview published Tuesday by the daily newspaper Le Parisien.
"The negotiations are getting nowhere," he said.
"We regularly receive news, and according to what we hear we are convinced that they are alive and in good health," [Foreign Minister Michel ] Barnier told the private radio station RTL on Monday.
Menard said France's Arab policy "has been overestimated, we bypassed the acting Iraqi interim government and France is suffering from its worsening relationship with Syria which backs the resistance in Iraq".
He added that there did not seem to be any precise demands by the kidnappers. [The kidnappers' one announced demand, the resicission of France's hijab ban, went by the board.]
Christian Chesnot and Georges Malbrunot were abducted August 20 of this year.
Just how does one conduct negotiations with kidnappers who have no demands?
Fast on the heels of the above:
TWO FRENCH IRAQ HOSTAGES FREED IN IRAQ-FRENCH PM
PARIS (Reuters) - "I have the profound joy of announcing that Christian Chesnot and Georges Malbrunot have been freed," Raffarin told the Senate upper house of parliament to loud applause followed by a standing ovation."I would like, before the upper house of parliament, to pay tribute to the courage of these two men, Christian Chesnot and Georges Malbrunot, who have suffered these long months in difficult conditions," Raffarin said.
Thierry Chesnot, Chesnot's brother, told Reuters he had been informed by the government that the two men were in Amman, the capital of Jordan, and would return to France on Wednesday.
This could not immediately be confirmed.
Arabic broadcaster Al Jazeera said earlier on Tuesday that Iraqi militants had handed over the two men to the French embassy in Baghdad but the mission did not confirm this.
It is inconceivable that M. Raffarin would make a reckless announcement on the subject of the kidnaps, so it's a good bet that Messrs. Chesnot and Malbrunot are now free. And since as the earlier story states the kidnappers had no particular demands, why, it looks like it's a Dhimmi Christmas!
Pave is happy for the release of Messrs. Chesnot and Malbrunot. We only hope France doesn't go weak in the knees over the Islamic Army of Iraq.
I wonder what sort of promises and support were given to the terrorists in exchange for the release of the hostages. After all, we are talking about the French.. quid for quo and all
Did France pay to free hostages?
The newspaper Le Monde said yesterday that a "senior political figure" had indicated money exchanged hands for the release of the journalists. Several opposition politicians also hinted they believed there had been a deal with the kidnappers which was partly financial.
That may have taken the form of a "deniable" payment - money handed over by an Arab government or money handed to an intermediary for fixing access to the kidnappers. Further details may, or may not, emerge in the next few days.
Le Monde said yesterday that negotiations to identify the kidnappers, among the scores of opposition groups in Iraq, had been conducted exclusively by the DGSE.
...France is known to have paid ransoms to release hostages in Lebanon in the 1980s and, according to a senior DGSE official quoted in Le Monde, was quite willing to do so on this occasion.
Looks like the French scumbags bent over on this one giving the terrorists everything they wanted. No one should have expected anything different. France has no honor.
The same question was asked about the Italian hostages. You love jumping to conclusions, don't you Blow-hard? But we'll find out eventually and keep you posted. Until then, shut up and have a merry Christmas!
Several Muslim nations helped in the negotiations. Remember that the Islamic group's initial demands (a revocation of the ban on the veil) was categorically denied by France from day one despite death threats. There was no ransom asked from the begining.
zoomer wrote: Several Muslim nations helped in the negotiations.
Yes, I believe that part was covered in the linked article,"..the form of a "deniable" payment - money handed over by an Arab government or money handed to an intermediary for fixing access to the kidnappers". So what was your point again zoomer? that appeasement, collaboration, and schlobbing the knobs of your enemies always works? Another great victory for France
that appeasement, collaboration, and schlobbing the knobs of your enemies always works?
What "enemies"?
The only "enemy" France has at the moment is Bgagbo of Ivory Coast, the ethnic cleanser who is not cleansing anymore, much to your chagrin it seems.
When in doubt, always refer to 1940...
zoomerx wrote: What "enemies"?
My mistake zoomer, how foolish of me to assume that France would consider terrorist vermin who abduct civilians and chop the heads off aid workers to be "enemies" of France. Would you prefer the term 'Brothers in arms'?
Amazing that zoomer thinks that the f@@ks who kidnap (even some of his "own" f**ks) are not "enemies". Speaks volumes, no, zoomer?
When in doubt, always refer to 1940
Well, why do we refer to 1940? I am half way through a book titled FRANCE The Dark Years 1940-1944 by Julian Jackson, author of another book titled The Fall of France: The Nazi Invasion of 1940 which I also enjoyed.
Obviously, the build up to WWII is complex and involves many different opinions as to causes, etc, but Jackson feels that If the German invasion of France had failed, it is arguable that the war might have ended right there. But the French suffered instead a dramatic and humiliating defeat, a loss that ultimately drew the whole world into war. Well, that’s a good reason to bring up 1940.
From the Dark years I was most interested in the collaboration of the French with the Germans. This quote from Admiral Darlan (the successor of Laval) caught my eye, and Jackson does a good job presenting both sides of the collaboration/resistance theories. I will, however, concentrate on the collaboration side here with the quote from Darlan: This is the last chance for us of a rapprochement with Germany…If we collaborate with Germany… that is to say, if we work for her in our factories, if we give her certain facilities, we can save the French nation; reduce to a minimum our territorial losses in the colonies and on the mainland; play an honourable-if not important- role in the future Europe. My choice is made: it is collaboration…France’s interest is to live and to remain a great power…In the present state of the world, and taking account of our terrible defeat, I see no other solution to protect our interests. What followed was The Protocols of Paris, which were only part of a longer process of Franco-German co-operation in North Africa. Just another reason to bring up 1940, zoomer.
Anybody notice the similarities with the quote (not an isolated view of just Darlan, I might add) and France’s attitude toward the Muslim world today?
First I say how I am glad that our two guys are back and safe. Not for highly rightus ideas but just thinking about them and their nexts.
1940-1945 beeing the darkest period in our story makes indeed a bone which the french-bashing adicted can suck endlessly. With a peak in 1942 when state run jews persecution started.
I also include 44-45 in these dark times as the "epuration", whomen hair curtting made by "resistant" of last hour was as well a shame.
Just curious about why do you forget, those who really resisted? Is it because most of them died? Why do you forget those who flew in RAF, or gave significant help in North-Africa (El Alamein) ?
Why do you bash De-Gaulle ? Is because he really saved what could be saved of Frances honor and independance? (Roosevelt planed to run France under an American administration...)
But after all, if you are American, it is not ONLY your fault ;D
Pierre
Just curious about why do you forget, those who really resisted?
I don't. I mentioned that "Jackson does a good job presenting both sides of the collaboration / resistance" issue.
I have two very good books on that subject. Rescue as Resistance by Lucien Lazare (about how the Holocaust in France was fought by various French groups, mostly Jewish) and Resistance and Betrayal by Patrick Marnham. It is about Jean Moulin. Great book.
Pierre wrote:
First I say how I am glad that our two guys are back and safe. Not for highly rightus ideas but just thinking about them and their nexts.
1940-1945 beeing the darkest period in our story makes indeed a bone which the french-bashing adicted can suck endlessly.
Pierre, you should be a more careful reader. Zoomer was the one who introduced 1940 into this thread, not "french bashers". But please stop your phony pretending.. France has PLENTY to be ashamed of after that period.
But since the subject has been raised, I would be curious to know the percentage of French who resisted the Nazis vs the percentage which collaborated with them. I think that piece of information would be quite instructive
Actually, the majority was trying to go on with their daily lives and survive massive food shortages. Do 600,000 French who died in WW2 (half of them civilians) mean anything? Not to mention the 1.7 million in WW1 (which does not include the missing and wounded).
zoomerx wrote: Do 600,000 French who died in WW2 (half of them civilians) mean anything? Not to mention the 1.7 million in WW1..
How French of you to whine like a little bitch zoomer. Is the US to blame in any way for France's losses? Non? .. responsibility for all those French lives lost would fall at the feet of the bloodthirsty Europeans themselves who spawned the 2 World Wars last century and added Balkan genocide as an encore. Can you say Versailles treaty? And the US intervened each time to help save your sorry ungrateful asses from more bloodletting.
And while we're on the subject, perhaps you can interrupt your self-absorbed French whining for a moment to consider thinking about all the death, destruction, and human misery caused by the French with their colonial jackboot in Algeria, Cameroun, Rwanda and SE Asia. Happy New Year you scumbag
Is the US to blame in any way for France's losses? Non? ..
Did I ever imply that, ignoramus?
And the US intervened each time to help save your sorry ungrateful asses from more bloodletting.
Not right away, moron. Google "Lusitania" and "Pearl Harbor".
And while we're on the subject, perhaps you can interrupt your self-absorbed French whining for a moment to consider thinking about all the death, destruction, and human misery caused by the French with their colonial jackboot in Algeria, Cameroun, Rwanda and SE Asia.
Sure, just like the native Indians, Slavery, Segregation, Vietnam, Cambodia, El Salvador etc... and now 100,000 dead Irakis who had nothing to do with "the war on terror"?
Happy New Year you scumbag
You too asswipe. I hope you'll finally get you head out of your ass in 2005.
Yes let's please talk about Pearl Harbor. There is as much a need of us 'Mericans to google Pearl Harbor as it would be for you to google "French Collaboration during WWII." We know our respective histories well.
As I have stated before, to which you wittily asked something to the effect "what's that got to do with anything?" our *first* active response to Pearl Harbor was to attack the Germans in Africa not to go after Japan. The European Theater *was* the first priority during WWII. As a result Paris was liberated before it would have been if we had focused on the Pacific war. Athlete's tonsil much Idiot? It might clear up if you would stop sticking your feet in your mouth.
Idiot is that 100000 dead IraQis referring to the death toll during the shameful oil for palaces years? Even iraqbodycount.org's inflated totals only claims 17158 dead since GWII started. Considering Human Right's Watch et al claimed upwards of 30000 dead each year during the Oil for Palaces years it would seem that our being there has been a positive effect on the death rate for IraQ.
