November 2015: Paris Bataclan attack/hostage taking

[Oscar590]

France invokes EU Article 42.7 and will request a meeting and resolution of the UN Security Council.https://euobserver.com/political/131136

 

[a_majoor]

More on a possible French response. I'm pretty sure France will be pushing for the allied nations to go after ISIS with fire and swords as well.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/11/france-could-commit-foreign-legion-to.html

France could commit the foreign legion to Syria and could invoke NATO Article 5 requiring joint NATO action

France bombed the Syrian city of Raqqa on Sunday night, its most aggressive strike against the Islamic State group it blames for killing 129 people in a string of terrorist attacks across Paris only two days before.

President François Hollande, who vowed to be “unforgiving with the barbarians” of the Islamic State after the carnage in Paris, decided on the airstrikes in a meeting with his national security team on Saturday, officials said.

Militants with AK-47s and suicide vests shattered the peaceful revelry of Paris on Friday night, killing dozens of civilians in restaurants and at a concert hall, France seemed intent on sending a clear message of its determination to curb the Islamic State and its ability to launch attacks outside the territory it controls.

The revelations that at least four French citizens were involved in the attacks — three brothers and a man who lived around Chartres, about 60 miles southwest of Paris — seemed destined to exacerbate longstanding fears in France about the place of Muslim immigrants and converts in French society.

The French Defense Ministry said in a statement that the raid, coordinated with American forces, was led by 12 French aircraft, including 10 fighter jets, and had destroyed two Islamic State targets in Raqqa, the radical group’s self-proclaimed capital.

The United States provided French officials with information to help them strike Islamic State targets in Syria, known as “strike packages,” American officials said.

France will deploy its aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle to the Gulf for strikes against the Islamic State on November 18. The deployment will be the second time in 2015 that the carrier has taken part in Operation 'Chammal', as France terms its anti-Islamic State strikes, having deployed to the Gulf from 23 February to 18 April.

With 20 Rafale and Super Etendard Modernise (SEM) aircraft on board, the Charles de Gaulle will help relieve the pressure on France's land-based aircraft in the region (three Mirage 2000Ds and three Mirage 2000Ns in Jordan; and six Rafales in the UAE).

France might commit the French Foreign Legion to Syria

Mr. Reuel Marc Gerecht, a former case officer in the Central Intelligence Agency, is a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Gerecht gave an analysis in the Wall Street Journal.

Because of the attacks Friday, the narrative will change. The soft-power-heavy, somewhat guilty Western analysis of Islamic militancy—where the progressive-minded avoid referring to Islam in describing an antipathy that sanctifies killing—is now dead in Europe and will soon be irretrievably embarrassing across the Atlantic.

If France committed to seeing this fight through to the end, the French make it more likely that the U.S. will commit more ground troops in Iraq and, as consequentially, put soldiers into Syria to create a defensible haven where civilians and the armed Sunni opposition can gather without fear of attack. Europe’s refugee and counterterrorist nightmares have no chance of resolution until the Syrian war is stopped.

If the French are willing to commit the Foreign Legion in Syria, an idea no longer unthinkable, it is much more likely that the Americans will consider ground troops and the arduous, dangerous, long-term effort to stabilize Syria. Although profoundly constrained by the size of its armed forces, France could serve, as Margaret Thatcher did for George H.W. Bush, as a back stiffener and force multiplier.

There are currently about 7700 soldiers in the French foreign legion.

France could invoke NATO Article 5 for a hard power attack on ISIS

“There is a time for soft power and playing the long game in the Middle East, but there is also a time for the ruthless application of hard power. It is NATO’s responsibility to recognize our current moment qualifies as the latter,” James Stavridis, a retired Navy admiral and former NATO top commander in Europe, wrote in Foreign Policy. “The Islamic State is an apocalyptic organization overdue for eradication.”

France hasn’t announced whether it will invoke Article 5, Stoltenberg told the Journal NATO’s members stand ready to assist.

The defense clause of NATO’s founding treaty stipulates that if invoked, each of the members will assist the party attacked. NATO’s military resources include more than 3 million troops under arms, 25,000 aircraft and 800 oceangoing warships, according to Foreign Policy. Economically, the alliance is also an intimidating force, representing more than 50 percent of global GDP.

The only time Article 5 has been invoked was after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks on the New York and Washington, which prompted NATO’s participation in the Afghanistan military mission. Should France become the second country to do so, ambassadors of the 28 nations would need to convene for consultation to determine a plan of action. The last country to request such a consultation was Turkey after attacks by ISIS in 2014.

“Hopefully, President Hollande will call Article 5 of NATO. And maybe we'll put together a coalition that can for once attack this horrific terrorist element before they have ability to carry out another coordinated attack like this,” North Carolina GOP Rep. Richard Burr, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

Holland is scheduled to address the French Parliament on Monday, during which he could lay out his plan.

He said after the attacks in and around Paris on Friday night that France “will be merciless toward the barbarians of the Islamic State group,” which has claimed responsibility for the killings.

White House Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes said Sunday that the United States would back France calling for Article 5.

SOURCES - Wall Street Journal, Wikipedia, IBTimes, Janes, NY Times

 

[daftandbarmy]

You just KNOW things are getting REALLY serious when the historians start to weigh in :boring:

Daftandbarmy, BA (Hist)

Martin van Creveld asks: Has a new Thirty Years’ War begun in Europe?

Summary: Today Martin van Creveld gives us a chilling warning, one that appears more accurate after the attacks on Paris. Our invasions after 9/11 destabilized the Middle East, and the resulting  fires slowly grow hotter and spread. If events follow the course of the Thirty Years’ War, much worse awaits us in the future.


http://fabiusmaximus.com/2015/11/16/new-30-years-war-in-europe-90331/

 

[McG]

Apparently there was a Canadian casualty in Friday's attack.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/canadian-injured-in-paris-attacks-on-friday/article27290973/

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Like you said..."IMO". It hasn't stopped the media asking the question though, and I'll like to think the opinion of the masses trumps a solitary one

Well, I base my "IMO" on things like OPSEC, "need to know", NDSIs, and stuff like that.  Security protocols, laws, regulations and directives trump what you'll 'like to think'.  :nod:

The media asked the question 'who was the second shooter on the grassy knoll?" too.  :-*

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Like you said..."IMO". It hasn't stopped the media asking the question though, and I'll like to think the opinion of the masses trumps a solitary one

Opcougar,

it doesn't take a genius or someone in the know to figure out the targets France attacked were already painted for destruction, the other countries in the MESF just gave France all the bombing runs for a political effect.  It's called politics, "here France, you need a lift so here are all the targets we were going to hit today, you can hit them all instead"... voila the French public gets a much needed morale boost and the rest of the MESF can take the day off.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Meanwhile, the  :Tin-Foil-Hat: Brigade saddles up ....

A series of bloody attacks in Paris exposed a handful of aspects that have so far been hindered by the official rhetoric of Western politicians and media sources in order to show the so-called “success” of “anti-terrorist campaign” unleashed by Washington. But first one must ask the question – who benefits from the Paris attacks?

(....)

The EU has been searching for a “decent way out” of the migration crisis, especially in a situation when EU member states started fighting over migrant quotas, reluctant to suffer any more economical damage. After all, no one would genuinely believe that French security services, once they were provided with unlimited capabilities to spy on any resident in the country, would “miss” terrorists planning to slaughter the civilian population with AKs, especially during such days when the French president is holding a meeting with the honorary guest of a neighboring state.

(....)

It is possible that in the next weeks we will learn of even more “shadow aspects” of the brutal attack on Paris, and about the role Western elites played in it. It may be that we are witnessing a repeat of “Operation Gladio“, due to which hundreds of innocent Italians perished in CIA-planned terrorist attacks that were aimed at ensuring the success of Western oligarchies.

More ....

At 7pm on Friday 13th we do not have much information about the "terrorist attacks" in Paris other than that Paris is closed down like Boston was after the "Boston Marathon Bombing," also a suspected false flag event.

Possibly believable evidence will be presented that the Paris attacks were real terrorist attacks. However, what do refugees have to gain from making themselves unwelcome with acts of violence committed against the host country, and where do refugees in France obtain automatic weapons and bombs? Indeed, where would the French themselves obtain them?

The millions of refugees from Washington's wars who are overrunning Europe are bringing to the forefront of European politics the anti-EU nationalists parties, such as Pegida in Germany, Nigel Farage's UK Independence Party, and Marine Le Pen's National Front Party in France. These anti-EU political parties are also anti-immigrant political parties.

The latest French poll shows that, as a result of the refugees from Washington's wars, Marine Le Pen has come out on top of the candidates for the next French presidential election.

By supporting for 14 years Washington's neoconservative wars for US hegemony over the Middle East, establishment European governments eroded their electoral support. European peoples want to be French, German, Dutch, Italian, Hungarian, Czech, British. They do not want their countries to be a diverse Tower of Babel created by millions of refugees from Washington's wars.

To remain a nationality unto themselves is what Pegida, Farage, and Le Pen offer the voters.

Realizing its vulnerability, it is entirely possible that the French Establishment made a decision to protect its hold on power with a false flag attack that would allow the Establishment to close France's borders and, thereby, deprive Marine Le Pen of her main political issue.

Some people are so naive and stupid as to think that no government would kill its own citizens. But governments do so all the time. There are an endless number of false flag attacks, such as Operation Gladio. Operation Gladio was a CIA/Italian intelligence operation that relentlessly bombed innocent Italians, such as those waiting in a train station, murdering hundreds, and then blaming the violence on the European communist parties in the post-WW II era in order to block the communists from electoral gains ....

 

[Edward Campbell]

You just KNOW things are getting REALLY serious when the historians start to weigh in :boring:

Daftandbarmy, BA (Hist)

Martin van Creveld asks: Has a new Thirty Years’ War begun in Europe?

Summary: Today Martin van Creveld gives us a chilling warning, one that appears more accurate after the attacks on Paris. Our invasions after 9/11 destabilized the Middle East, and the resulting  fires slowly grow hotter and spread. If events follow the course of the Thirty Years’ War, much worse awaits us in the future.


http://fabiusmaximus.com/2015/11/16/new-30-years-war-in-europe-90331/

Indeed, which is why we have this whole thread. But, there's always a "but," with me, the important issue isn't the Thirty-Years War (nor the Muslim version thereof), nor it is the religious reformation over which the Thirty-Years war was fought, it is the socio-cultural enlightenment which, I believe, must happen throughout most of the Islamic Crescent.

 

[GAP]

Strange

literally hundreds of citizens are maimed and killed in violent terrorist acts throughout Africa and sometimes Asia, but it never makes page 3, let alone page 1.

I see no anti terrorist campaigns, little bombing, no martial law, tightening of borders in these places, but let it happen in France, the US, etc suddenly chicken little has come.........


I wonder if they still serve "French Fries" in NY?

:2c:

 

[George Wallace]

Strange

literally hundreds of citizens are maimed and killed in violent terrorist acts throughout Africa and sometimes Asia, but it never makes page 3, let alone page 1.

I see no anti terrorist campaigns, little bombing, no martial law, tightening of borders in these places, but let it happen in France, the US, etc suddenly chicken little has come.........


I wonder if they still serve "French Fries" in NY?

:2c:

Is it really that strange?  "If it happens in your house, it is more important news to your family, than if it happens on the other side of town to some stranger."  In this case, Paris is within the "house and family" of the WEST, and pertinent to "family security"; as opposed to events in a Third World nations.  At the same time, any security and military responses taken by the WEST in Third World nations to those events, are not front page news in Western MSM.  I am sure that there are responses being made by such nations as France through employment of the FFE in some of those locals, totally overlooked by Western MSM.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Meanwhile, Terminal Lance speaks on behalf of all warriors.... except for the 'explicit act' thing of course

http://terminallance.com/2015/11/17/terminal-lance-ready-for-action/

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Africa is China's problem now. They want to develop it, they can take care of it.

 

[Journeyman]

France invokes EU Article 42.7 and will request a meeting and resolution of the UN Security Council.

Well, I think we're pretty much at the end-game with ISIS now. 

Invoking an EU Article, plus a UN meeting being the icing on the cake, ISIS is all but relegated to the dustbin of history.    op:

 

[Tuan]

When was there any statement that we should adopt anti-refugee policies? The point was that the political right wants security and the left wants humanity... there's a middle ground to be had that meets both ends. Saying things short of "bring them all in now!" isn't anti-refugee...

Obama tells it as it is:
https://www.facebook.com/Vox/videos/454571884730419/

 

[The Bread Guy]

Well, I think we're pretty much at the end-game with ISIS now. 

Invoking an EU Article, plus a UN meeting being the icing on the cake, ISIS is all but relegated to the dustbin of history.    op:

Don't forget the G20's statement there, too ....

We condemn, in the strongest possible terms, the heinous terrorist attacks in Paris on 13 November and in Ankara on 10 October. They are an unacceptable affront to all humanity. We extend our deepest condolences to the victims of terrorist attacks and their families. We reaffirm our solidarity and resolve in the fight against terrorism in all its forms and wherever it occurs.
We remain united in combatting terrorism. The spread of terrorist organizations and significant rise globally in acts of terrorism directly undermine the maintenance of international peace and security and endangers our ongoing efforts to strengthen the global economy and ensure sustainable growth and development.
We unequivocally condemn all acts, methods and practices of terrorism, which cannot be justified under any circumstances, regardless of their motivation, in all their forms and manifestations, wherever and by whomsoever committed.
We reaffirm that terrorism cannot and should not be associated with any religion, nationality, civilization or ethnic group.
The fight against terrorism is a major priority for all of our countries and we reiterate our resolve to work together to prevent and suppress terrorist acts through increased international solidarity and cooperation, in full recognition of the UN’s central role, and in accordance with UN Charter and obligations under international law, including international human rights law, international refugee law and international humanitarian law, as well as through the full implementation of the relevant international conventions, UN Security Council Resolutions and the UN Global Counter Terrorism Strategy.
We also remain committed to tackling the financing channels of terrorism, particularly by enhanced cooperation on exchange of information and freezing of terrorist assets, criminalization of terrorist financing and robust targeted financial sanctions regimes related to terrorism and terrorist financing, including through swift implementation of Financial Action Task Force (FATF) standards in all jurisdictions. We will continue to implement relevant FATF recommendations and instruments. We call on FATF to identify measures, including pertaining to legal framework, to strengthen combatting of terrorism financing and targeted financial sanctions and implementation thereof.
Our counter terrorism actions must continue to be part of a comprehensive approach based on addressing the conditions conducive to terrorism as stipulated in UN Security Council Resolution 2178, countering violent extremism, combatting radicalization and recruitment, hampering terrorist movements, countering terrorist propaganda and to prevent terrorists from exploiting technology, communications and resources to incite terrorist acts, including through the internet. The direct or indirect encouragement of terrorism, the incitement of terrorist acts and glorification of violence must be prevented. We recognize the need at all levels to work proactively to prevent violent extremism and support civil society in engaging youth and promoting inclusion of all members of society.
We are concerned over the acute and growing flow of foreign terrorist fighters and the threat it poses for all States, including countries of origin, transit and destination. We are resolved to address this threat by enhancing our cooperation and developing relevant measures to prevent and tackle this phenomenon, including operational information-sharing, border management to detect travel, preventive measures and appropriate criminal justice response. We will work together to strengthen global aviation security.
The continued and recent terrorist attacks all across the world have shown once again the need for increased international cooperation and solidarity in the fight against terrorism. We will always remember the victims of these attacks.

 

[Kilo_302]

It's amazing how the 39% that voted liberal represent a clear mandate and campaign promises can be made without debate but tge conservatives 39% was not a majority since 61% voted for other parties and not debating important policy issues was tyranny. Times sure change

You're forgetting that 19% of Canadians also voted for the NDP, 4.7% voted Bloc and 3.5% voted Green. 66% of Canadians voted against Harper, and the positions of these parties are quite similar versus the agenda of the Conservatives. At times the NDP and the Liberal platforms were almost indistinguishable. I agree with you that 39% shouldn't be considered a "mandate" and is simply not a majority, but the Conservatives have only themselves to blame for the amount of daylight between them and the rest of the federal parties in Canada.

 

[The Bread Guy]

A bit of a round up from the U.S. Congressional Research Service on what's happened so far - they tend to do good stuff, so worth a read.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

You're forgetting that 19% of Canadians also voted for the NDP, 4.7% voted Bloc and 3.5% voted Green. 66% of Canadians voted against Harper, and the positions of these parties are quite similar versus the agenda of the Conservatives. At times the NDP and the Liberal platforms were almost indistinguishable. I agree with you that 39% shouldn't be considered a "mandate" and is simply not a majority, but the Conservatives have only themselves to blame for the amount of daylight between them and the rest of the federal parties in Canada.

Ahhh, this argument again. I suspect that if either the Liberals or the NDP went the way of the dodo than we would see a situation more like the US where elections are generally around the 50-50 range. 61% voted against Trudeau, so why does it matter what part of the spectrum the other parties fall on?

 

[dapaterson]

Ahhh, this argument again. I suspect that if either the Liberals or the NDP went the way of the dodo than we would see a situation more like the US where elections are generally around the 50-50 range. 61% voted against Trudeau, so why does it matter what part of the spectrum the other parties fall on?

It matters if it can be twisted to support my opinion.  Otherwise, it's irrelevant.  >

 

[GR66]

You're forgetting that 19% of Canadians also voted for the NDP, 4.7% voted Bloc and 3.5% voted Green. 66% of Canadians voted against Harper, and the positions of these parties are quite similar versus the agenda of the Conservatives. At times the NDP and the Liberal platforms were almost indistinguishable. I agree with you that 39% shouldn't be considered a "mandate" and is simply not a majority, but the Conservatives have only themselves to blame for the amount of daylight between them and the rest of the federal parties in Canada.

That's nice of you to assume that everyone who did not select the Conservatives on their ballot on election night would prefer to have Trudeau over Harper as PM.  Not everyone who did not vote Conservative is an "Anything But Harper" supporter and not everyone votes for their MP based soley on their preference for party leader.

The Liberals were elected with a plurality of the vote.  That gives them the full, legitimate right to govern in our system.  It doesn't however make THEIR 39% support any more or less legitimate than any other previous government's 39% support.