Following our earlier post by one and two days, respectively, the franchouilles presented their informed versions of M. Planche's rescue.

Besides, it's not like US troops were actively looking for the hostage as your post suggests, is it? Having said that, thanks for making his escape possible and not shooting him in the process.

Thanks but no thanks actually. The bloke set himself free from his captors when he realised he was being unwatched. The tricky bit in this evasion, was not so much the escape in itself but rather how to avoid getting shot at by trigger happy US troops, when approching [sic]them.

ESCAPED FRENCH HOSTAGE HEADS HOME FROM IRAQ

PARIS January 9, 2006 (AFP) - The Frenchman [Bernard Planche], who was abducted in Baghdad on December 5, escaped Saturday from a farmhouse west of the capital where he was being held, according to the US military.

Planche ran away Saturday from a farmhouse where he was held after his captors [scil., terrorist kidnappers] fled US and Iraqi troops who were conducting a search of a rural area on the western outskirts of the capital, the US military said.

Planche got out through a window of the farmhouse after his captors suddenly abandoned the farm, Major Jim Crawford told AFP.

"When he realised he was alone and saw US forces in the distance, he escaped through a window and ran down the road," Crawford said. "He had his hands in the air and, as he approached the US checkpoint, he took his shirt off to show he had no explosives on him," said the major from the 10th Mountain division.

To M. FFF's point, oh, very tricky evasion. Until your post we had been under the misconception that evasion involved running away from a danger and not running headlong toward it.

US and Iraqi forces were searching the area after receiving information on the possible presence of arms caches and of a kidnapping ring in the area.

To M. Zmx's point, why, yes, American troops were actively looking for hostages. Both Jack and Dom recognize this much in their spare public thanks.*

The former hostage then insisted on staying with US troops for six hours to help them hunt for his former captors. ... The Frenchman, who was kidnapped from his home on December 5, apparently suffered a broken nose when his captors seized him. But after his release, he was smiling and joking with the soldiers.

Ah, Messrs. FFF et Zmx, it would appear M. Planche does not share your smart opinions that he was safer with his kidnappers than American forces. But then who is M. Planche to upend your smug commentary?

The marvelous thing about being a donkey is there is no encumbrance of facts to spoil your sneer. Your prejudices alone suffice to confirm your prejudices. And when you are wrong, why who's to remember your empty claims? No apologies required. No climb-downs necessary. You are a donkey. Tomorrow your spleen is born anew in some other thread. And just as soon forgotten.

M. Planche: Merci. America: C'est rein. Franchouilles: Ouais, Ouais.

* It is a very black day indeed, when a franchouille cannot depend on the la Mouette en chef de la France -- or Jack! -- for a little by-the-numbers reactionary anti-Americanism.

Dom: "Il [scil., Dom] remercie également les autorités américaines qui ont apporté leur concours à la libération de Monsieur Bernard Planche à l’occasion d’une opération de sécurisation dans la banlieue de Bagdad. "

Jack: "Le Président de la République remercie les forces de la coalition qui ont permis cette libération."

PFFT (What is this?): No thanks 5 | Rayonnement français 0

Bonjour,

Le modèle social US en acte:

Le "Figaro Eco" (désolé pour le petit collabo US "social traître" ce n'est pas une information de l'Huma) nous apprend que les multinationales US ,trahissant leurs engagements auprès de leurs salariés s'apprêtent à amputer largement les retraites de ces salariés

C'est le cas en particulier d' IBM et cela bien que les profits d' IBM n'aient jamais été aussi grands...

On voit ce qu'est le marché de dupes de la canaille libérale française qui nous enjoint d'appliquer ce "modèle" en France...

Good luck for yours workers !

M. AB/AY,

Just what is it with you? Why are you posting a response to a comment in a thread two topics back? It is not by accident that you are responding here, so why? Are you not getting enough attention?Or perhaps you are simply a bore with nothing to say but compelled to prattle on nonetheless?

We indulge your shrill French mostly because Andy enjoys demolishing your rants. But now you seek another French privilege -- to post willy-nilly.

Of course your irrelevance here partially illustrates this topic's theme: Don't Confuse The French. Do try to be a good Frenchie and confine yourself to commenting on the topic for the thread in which you find yourself.

The Management

Le gouvernement français faisait alors savoir qu'il faisait son maximum pour obtenir sa libération – assurance qu'avait aussi donnée le président Jacques Chirac à la fille de l'ingénieur, Isabelle Planche.

Any word if the French Govt had offered any payment for the his release, or was making any type of financial arrangements with the thugs?

We don't know but what we do know is that US forces have been "appeasing the terrorists" for some time.

Remember when a French suggestion to include insurgents in talks was ridiculed on Pave no so long ago?

We don't know but what we do know is that US forces have been "appeasing the terrorists" for some time.

Posted by zoomerx at January 11, 2006 02:18 PM

After a promising start acknowledging something he does not know, M. Zmx then claims to know something he does not know based on his linked article. But M. Zmx does not read articles. He reads headlines, which suffices for him to invent a fabulous world where France is triumphant and M. Zmx a very smart fellow.

First, two meetings in June of this year become "for some time" by M. Zmx's temporal reckoning.

Second, America's role in the meetings as the dominant military force in the region was to facilitate, at the request of the legitimate government of Iraq, that government's sit-down with the opposition. Mr. Rumsfeld explained:

"We see the government of Iraq as sovereign. They're the ones that are reaching out to the people who are not supporting the government," Rumsfeld said on "Meet the Press."

"They're not going to try to bring in the people with blood on their hands, for sure, but they're certainly reaching out continuously, and we help to facilitate those from time to time."

This to M. Zmx becomes "appeasing terrorists". Yes, we are prepared to defer to M. Zmx as an expert on appeasement by virtue of his being French. However, whereas in France appeasement may be tantamount to surrendering one's principles, person, and country for nothing, we understand appeasement to be a policy of mutual benefits, where the appeaser makes a greater concession to secure some benefit from the appeased. Yet M. Zmx identifies no derived benefit -- great, small, or pari passu -- to America.

Third, M. Zmx, clueless about the conduct of wars, is surprised that belligents conduct talks during the course of hostilities. Such talks are called parleys. Parleys take place in all wars with a variety of agenda.

M. Zmx's article describes the nature of this parley's agenda:

The U.S. officials tried to gather information about the structure, leadership and operations of the insurgent groups, which irritated some members, who had been told the talks would consider their main demand, a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, the newspaper said.

We had been under the impression that when appeasing one took pains NOT to irritate the other party.

During the June 13 talks, the U.S. officials demanded that two other insurgent groups, the 1920 Revolution and the Majhadeen Shoura Council, cut ties with al-Zarqawi's group, al Qaeda in Iraq, according to the report.

Also appeasers do not make demands, they make the bigger concession, like giving away Czechoslovakia for Hitler's airy word.

But then this posted topic is all about what franchouilles don't know but make claims for anyway. And M. Zmx, being a sport, obligingly shows up to illustrate our point.

DGB

Third, M. Zmx, clueless about the conduct of wars, is surprised that belligents conduct talks during the course of hostilities. Such talks are called parleys. Parleys take place in all wars with a variety of agenda.

Quite the opposite. And not surprisingly, Mr Damian doesn't understand irony (as Brits often point out about Americans by the way) when a year ago, when "parleys" (negotiations) were merely suggested by French officials, he and his distinguished following were quick to call it "appeasing terrorists".

Well see Idiot when a Frog suggest parley it usually involves a white flag of surrender. Please forgive us for not wanting to go down that road.