Ethiopian airline bombing in Lebanon - warning to France

[Joe]

Sounds like this fits the bill for the reason for the secret team to bomb the Ethiopian airlines crash, killing the French ambassador's wife and a couple of other french intel assets. Given that we suspect the CIA was involved, it says a lot about just how much in bed the US is with Israel in terms of Israel's Arab blood lust... It seems that, unless something is done to stop them, the Israelis are planning another Lebanon slaughter soon. One year they murder thousands in Palestine, the next year they turn to Lebanon. I wonder if a large scale attack on Lebanon will constitute the "Israeli mistake" that is being predicted.

Lebanon PM seeks France's support in Middle East

http://www.rfi.fr/actuen/articles/121/article_6624.asp

2010-01-22

France's President Nicolas Sarkozy (L) greets Lebanon's Prime Minister Saad Hariri as he arrives at the Elysée Palace in Paris.

Lebanon's Prime Minister Saad Hariri was in Paris on Friday for talks with French President Nicolas Sarkozy, in the first official visit he has made to Europe since taking office in November. Hariri sought French support against an Israeli "intervention" in Lebanon.

Hariri has already met French Prime Minister François Fillon and Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner during his three-day visit.

The choice of France for Hariri's first visit as Prime Minister reflects the historic relationship between France and Lebanon, said Fillon, adding that Lebanon has France's "full support".

Hariri is seeking to enlist this support in preventing an Israeli "intervention" in Lebanon, as he described it in an interview with Le Monde newspaper.

During a joint press conference with his French counterpart, Hariri stressed "the need to put an end to Israel's daily violations" of UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which called for a ceasefire between Israel and Hizbollah.

"Last week, Israeli planes made 25 flyovers in Lebanese air space in a single day," Hariri told Le Monde.

Fillon agreed on the importance of all parties respecting the resolution, and said France would support Lebanon's efforts to strengthen its national army.

Yet France cannot commit to preventing Israeli military action, Foreign Minister Kouchner insisted.

"Israeli guarantees can only be given by Israel, and we will discuss the issue with them," Kouchner said after meeting Lebanese Foreign Minister Ali Shami, who accompanied Hariri this week.

Lebanon's Defence, Justice, Interior, Social Affairs and Finance ministers made up the rest of the delegation.

Hariri ratified five bilateral co-operation agreements with France during his visit, covering homeland security, legal collaboration, education and research.

 

[anart]

Interesting. When you mentioned the Russian ship sale earlier, in possible connection, I was thinking that it had to do directly with Lebanon. I thought this since the ambassador's wife was killed. This connection makes a lot of sense. How do you think the Russian connection ties in, or does it directly, or is it a whole other kettle of fish?

 

[Joe]

Interesting. When you mentioned the Russian ship sale earlier, in possible connection, I was thinking that it had to do directly with Lebanon. I thought this since the ambassador's wife was killed. This connection makes a lot of sense. How do you think the Russian connection ties in, or does it directly, or is it a whole other kettle of fish?

You mean the Socotra business?

 

[Rick]

I remember back in 2006 after Israel stopped slaughtering Lebanese civilians and Condolizzard Rice finally let a UN resolution pass the Security Council to stop the bloodfest France almost fired on Israeli planes. Let me see if I can find it. Here's a reference to it:

France authorizes troops to fire at Israeli aircraft over Lebanon

French soldiers serving with the United Nations force in south Lebanon, who feel threatened by Israel Air Force (IAF) overflights, are permitted to shoot at Israeli aircraft, the Jerusalem Post daily reported Thursday, quoting "a high-ranking French military officer."

The French decision was conveyed several days after an Israel Defence Forces (IDF) general met French officials in Paris to explain why the IAF conducted the overflights in south Lebanon, in violation of a UN-brokered ceasefire which ended the fighting in the summer between Israel and Lebanese Hezbollah guerrillas.

The overflights over French positions have raised French hackles. On October 31, an IAF mock bombing run almost prompted the troops to launch anti-aircraft missiles.

Major-General Ido Nehushtan told his French counterparts in Paris that Israel was conducting the flights to collect intelligence on Hezbollah, which Israel has accused of also violating the UN ceasefire.

Israel sent a clear warning.

 

[anart]

You mean the Socotra business?

No, I meant the fact that France agreed to sell a battleship (or perhaps more) to Russia. Perhaps the discussion wasn't on the forum, though - been a busy day. I'll find it...

 

[Joe]

You mean the Socotra business?

No, I meant the fact that France agreed to sell a battleship (or perhaps more) to Russia. Perhaps the discussion wasn't on the forum, though - been a busy day. I'll find it...

Ah yes, I remember that one, but not where I saw it. Weird, must have been on the forum somewhere.

Anyway, yeah I immediately thought that it was connected in terms of the comment to "watch the relationship between the two countries". Sounds like some really petty, in a really messed up way, games being played. You kill our intel agents, we're gonna sell ships to your enemy. They're like a bunch of little psychopathic kids.

 

[Pierre]

You mean the Socotra business?

No, I meant the fact that France agreed to sell a battleship (or perhaps more) to Russia. Perhaps the discussion wasn't on the forum, though - been a busy day. I'll find it...

Yesterday, Le Monde newspaper mentioned this deal, I added some bolding and italicized comments in []:

BRUSSELS -- The French daily "Le Monde" broke the news on February 9: Paris had "agreed in principle" to negotiate the sale of one or more Mistral-class ships to Russia.

If the sale goes through, it will be the first deal of its kind between a member of NATO and Russia.

Prime Minister Vladimir Putin first voiced Russian interest in buying a Mistral-class ship during a trip to Paris in late November. As he spoke, a Mistral was docked in St Petersburg -- part of a carefully choreographed move -- playing host to Russian combat helicopters.

Feeling vulnerable, a number of Russia's former satellites have mounted a bid to derail the sale. Georgia is particularly bothered [or the USA and Israël are using the Georgia puppet government to voice some concern and derail the deal?], as memories of its August 2008 war with Russia are still very fresh.

NATO's new Eastern allies along the Baltic Sea are also unsettled, however, and have taken their concerns not only to Paris but to Washington and NATO headquarters in Brussels.

Undermine Security

Harri Tiido, the undersecretary for political affairs at the Estonian Foreign Ministry, tells RFE/RL that the Baltic states believe the sale of the Mistrals could undermine their security. "Definitely, it would not add to the security of the region. And I think the nations around the Baltic Sea in that case would have to see what they have to do to change their defense planning, maybe," Tiido says. "But also, it could influence the defense planning of NATO."

The Mistral is a 200-meter vessel capable of carrying 900 troops, 35 helicopters, four landing barges, and 70 land-going vehicles. It also has facilities for carrying refugees, supplies, and hospitals.

Although it has often been deployed by France in humanitarian missions, Russia seems to have military applications uppermost in its mind. In September, the chief of the Russian Navy, Admiral Vladimir Vysotsky, said a Mistral-type vessel would have allowed Russia to defeat Georgia in 2008 "in 40 minutes instead of 26 hours."

Estonians and the other Baltic states take some solace from the fact that the Mistral is not designed to operate in icy conditions.[So the concerns of the Baltic states are not really legitimate. Did the US and/or Israël ask them to voice their concern because those ships might mess up with the Zionist plans in Middle East?]

Russian defense analyst Pavel Felgenhauer says that Russia is planning to deploy the Mistrals in the Black Sea. "The most obvious application is to have the capability to perform large-scale landing operations in the Black Sea. And I believe that's first and foremost in the western half of Crimea," he says. "We have quite a number of large landing ships, but they're not new, and they were all built abroad, in Poland, at the Gdansk shipyard. They don't have helicopter landing capabilities.[actually the Black Sea is very close to Israël, Lebanon and Iran, it's even connected to the Mediteranean Sea through the Bosphorus and Dardanelle straights]

"So, if by 2017, we would have some kind of problem with Sevastopol, having such a capability would be very important."

Felgenhauer says he doesn't believe the Mistrals would be used against Georgia.


Lobbying The United States

The chairman of Russia's national Security Council, Nikolai Patrushev, said on February 9 that Moscow has not yet made a decision on whether to buy the Mistrals.

In an attempt to make the sale an issue of NATO solidarity, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania have jointly lobbied the United States to intervene.

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates met with French President Nicolas Sarkozy in Paris today and said afterward, "It is more a problem of the message being sent than a military issue."

So now [France has] decided to make a step forward and give the green light to a project that is removing many taboos in Russia and the West.
At NATO headquarters, officials appear to assume it is now a matter of when and not whether the deal will materialize. NATO spokesman James Appathurai says that the alliance has no objections.

"NATO has no formal role at all in this sale," he says. "Of course, allies talk to each other, including on this issue. We are quite confident that the sale would be -- when it takes place -- perfectly legal, within all the relevant frameworks. But, of course, some allies have expressed concern about the sale, and we are aware of it."

Heavy With Irony

The whole affair is heavy with irony for both NATO and France. Experts point out that Russia is seeking to buy the Mistrals in order to address some its naval weaknesses that were exposed by the Georgian campaign.

Georgia itself now feels threatened and its leaders are warning NATO that Russia intends to use the Mistrals against it.

Four months before the war, in April 2008, NATO turned down Georgia's bid to join the alliance's membership track after France and Germany voiced their opposition. France, acting as EU president, negotiated the war's August 12 cease-fire -- the full terms of which Russia has refused to honor.[Despite Sarkozy ardent pro americanism, it seems that France is not following all the decisions of Washingtown]

French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner has said that only French intervention prevented Russia from capturing Tbilisi. Both the EU and NATO temporarily broke off relations with Russia after the war.

Last year, France rejoined NATO's military command structure after an absence of 43 years. But Paris also vowed to pursue a European axis within the alliance. Its leaders have repeatedly argued that the alliance can't continue treating Moscow as simultaneously an ally and an enemy, a position Germany agrees with.

Both countries opposed the U.S. plan to site part of its missile shield in Eastern Europe, as well as drawing up NATO defense plans for the three Baltic countries.

Broader Agenda

Arnaud Dubien, a Russia expert at the French Institute of International and Strategic Relations (IRIS), says that France's pursuit of better relations with Russia is part of a broader national agenda.

"France wants a more ambitious relation with Russia, notably in the economic sphere, but also on the political sphere. France wants to be present in important sectors: energy, aeronautics, railways," Dubien says. "So now [it] decided to make a step forward and give the green light to a project that is removing many taboos in Russia and the West."

Under President Barack Obama, the United States has sought to "reset" its fraught relationship with Russia. NATO, under Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, has followed suit. Russia plays an increasingly vital role in NATO's efforts to stabilize Afghanistan.

Dubien also points out that the Mistral deal has a significant domestic dimension for France, which, like other developed nations, is grappling with the effects of the global economic downturn.

"The shipyards of Saint-Nazaire are currently building a third Mistral for the French Navy, but starting from next year, there are no [new] orders," Dubien says. "Building a Mistral employs about 1,500 people for nearly two years, and it would have been very difficult for the French government to explain to the future unemployed that there was an order, but that we refused to honor it."

Potential competition from shipyards in Spain and the Netherlands, both of which have been quietly approached by Moscow, raises the stakes. But Russia, like France, appears to have the bigger picture in mind. Moscow views France as a crucial bridgehead in Europe. Russia's sights are set on Paris: 2010 is "The Year of France" in Russia, and "The Year of Russia" in France.

French officials expect the sale of the Mistrals to be officially announced during Russian President Dmitry Medvedev's visit to Paris in early March.

 

[anart]

Sounds like some really petty, in a really messed up way, games being played. You kill our intel agents, we're gonna sell ships to your enemy. They're like a bunch of little psychopathic kids.

Exactly...

 

[Aeneas]

It is also interesting how Kouchner so obviously shows his true colours as a staunch supporter of Israel. Not that there is any surprise in that.

Fillon agreed on the importance of all parties respecting the resolution, and said France would support Lebanon's efforts to strengthen its national army.

Yet France cannot commit to preventing Israeli military action, Foreign Minister Kouchner insisted.

"Israeli guarantees can only be given by Israel, and we will discuss the issue with them," Kouchner said after meeting Lebanese Foreign Minister Ali Shami, who accompanied Hariri this week.

But this is interesting to follow and the possible changing of alliances in the geopolitical landscape.

 

[Possibility of Being]

There is also a connection between that deal and Iran sanctions and the deal causes (or deepens) a tension between France and the US. These kids seem to play a power test or so. And of course they is a big money involved due to the planned exemption. Here are three articles describing that development pretty well. I'm putting them chronologically:

Exclusive: State Department letter to Kerry outlines "serious substantive concerns" with Iran sanctions bill [Link]
Posted By Josh Rogin Friday, December 11, 2009 - 11:08 PM

Next week is going to be a big week for Iran sanctions, particularly on Capitol Hill. As administration officials change their tone and talk more about a "pressure track" in public, behind the scenes negotiations about how to proceed are heating up.

In a previously unreported development, the State Department sent a letter to Congress Friday, obtained by The Cable, asking lawmakers to hold off moving on Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd's Iran sanctions bill until the new year.

"We are entering a critical period of intense diplomacy to impose significant international pressure on Iran. This requires that we keep the focus on Iran," Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg wrote to Senate Foreign Relations Chairman John Kerry, D-MA, "At this juncture, I am concerned that this legislation, in its current form, might weaken rather than strengthen international unity and support for our efforts."

"In addition to the timing, we have serious substantive concerns, including the lack of flexibility, inefficient monetary thresholds and penalty levels, and blacklisting that could cause unintended foreign policy consequences," the letter reads.

The bill had been "hotlined" on Tuesday but then Senate leaders were waiting for the administration to weigh in with its concerns.

According to one Hill source, the Dodd bill isn't stalled, really. It's more that the bill is now the subject of negotiations between the administration and key senators over the language of the sanctions. One issue, the source said, is whether the bill's sanctions on third-party countries who are involved in selling refined petroleum products to Iran could be exempted if they are part of efforts to combat Iran's nuclear ambitions.

Under the current language, the president could waive sanctions on particular countries if he chooses, but the administration would prefer that the exemption be given to cooperating countries up front, according to the source.

There is a strong sense that it is in the interest of all parties involved to work out a deal, and that the bill is therefore likely to pass sometime early in early 2010, the source said. Key players in the negotiations are said to be Kerry, Dodd, Evan Bayh, D-IN, Joseph Lieberman, I-CT, and Jon Kyl, R-AZ.

Meanwhile, the House is expected to vote on House Foreign Affairs Chairman Howard Berman's Iran sanctions bill next week, a House leadership aide said. That bill is also focused on refined petroleum sales to Iran. It's expected to pass by a wide margin.

Republicans ready to tie Iran sanctions to French-Russian arms deal [Link]
Tuesday, December 22, 2009 - 8:33 PM

As the Senate negotiates with the Obama administration over Iran sanctions, conflict over a French arms sale to Russia could get caught up in the mix.

The friction between top GOP leaders in Congress and the French government is over the Mistral-class amphibious assault ship, which the French are considering selling to the Russian Federation. As the biggest potential arms sale from a NATO country to Russia, U.S. lawmakers are worried this could set off a chain reaction of NATO arms sales to Russia. Plus, they share the concerns of Georgia and the Baltic states that the ship could allow Russia to increase its aggressiveness in its near abroad.

So what does this have to do with Iran sanctions? Well, The Cable brought you exclusively the story of how the State Department wants changes in the Chris Dodd Iran sanctions bill that's currently pending in the Senate. Basically, the Obama administration wants exemptions for countries that cooperate with American sanctions against Iran. France presumably would be at the top of the list.

But a senior GOP Senate aide told The Cable that Republicans negotiating over the Iran sanctions language would not allow an exemption for France or French companies if the Mistral deal goes through.

"Whether or not France gets an exemption could very well depend on whether France decides to sell this ship to Russia," the aide said, explaining that "it's possible to draw that exemption narrow enough so that the president could not possibly exempt France."

One obvious target is the French oil and gas giant Total, which could be caught up in the Dodd bill's restrictions on exporting refined petroleum products to Iran. Total is reportedly in negotiations right now with the Chinese regarding a joint project in Iran's South Pars region.

The petroleum restrictions are also at the core of a companion bill which passed overwhelmingly in the House last week.

Recently, American lawmakers have increased their interest and activity in the Mistral story.

Six GOP senators wrote to French Ambassador Pierre Vimont Monday to express their concerns about the potential sale. House Foreign Affairs ranking Republican Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-FL, introduced a bill last week calling on the French to stand down from the deal.

In a letter dated Monday, obtained by The Cable, Vimont responded to the Senators, telling them basically that France would make its own decisions about selling the ship to the Russians, and thanking them for their interest.

"France has no reason to refuse considering a Russian request, which is being examined, and will be concluded, with all the necessary precautions as part of the French military equipment export control regulatory procedures," Vimont wrote.

In other words, France won't go by the Wassenaar Arrangement on Export Controls or the European Union Code of Conduct for Arms Exports, as the Senators had wanted.

Vimont also repeated various French defenses of the sale, as told to The Cable by French embassy spokesmen, which include that the ship has been used for humanitarian missions, has no really advanced technological elements, and would not present a credible threat to the NATO alliance.

But multiple Senate aides reached by The Cable felt unsatisfied with that response and pledged to fight on.

"If France decides to go ahead and do this, which the letter all but says they will, our options are limited but it will have consequences for the NATO alliance," one senate aide warned.

And the latest:

State Department holds firm on exempting France from Iran sanctions [Link]
Tuesday, February 9, 2010

France's announcement that it will sell an advanced amphibious assault ship to Russia should not complicate ongoing negotiations over Iran sanctions, according to the State Department's top spokesman.

Lawmakers had threatened that if the French government went through with the sale, which would be the first major arms sale to Russia from a NATO country, they would retaliate by resisting administration efforts to exempt France and other countries from sanctions in the Iran legislation making its way through Congress.

It was never clear how serious the threat was, but nonetheless the administration says it will insist on the exemptions, despite the French decision.

"I wouldn't blend the two together," said State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley, who noted that negotiations between the administration and lawmakers over Chris Dodd's Iran sanctions legislation are ongoing.

"One of the issues we will be talking to Congress about is to make sure the president has sufficient flexibility to be able to work with other countries effectively for our shared goal of finding ways to put appropriate pressure on Iran to change course," Crowley added.

The Senate passed the bill by unanimous consent late last month but the administration will argue for its changes when the bill meets the House version in conference. That conference is not expected until after the administration pursues a new U.N. resolution on Iran.

As for the weapons deal with Russia, "obviously is it something we will consult with the French on and other countries in the region," said Crowley, referring to statements by Defense Secretary Robert Gates yesterday, who was in Paris. Gates signaled American displeasure with the decision but declined to specify what the U.S. might do about it, if anything.

France's announcement that it will sell the Mistral-class amphibious assault ship to Russia comes at a delicate time for U.S. relations with and Russia, not to mention Georgia, which sees the ship as a potential threat.

Almost every article about the Mistral quotes Russian Adm. Vladimir Vysotskiy, who said in September that the ship "would have allowed [Russia's] Black Sea Fleet to accomplish its mission in 40 minutes" during the 2008 Georgia war, "not 26 hours which is how long it took us."

Russian leaders have distanced themselves from Vysotskiy's statement, but Russian President Vladimir Putin has made clear he will not foreswear using the Mistral wherever his government pleases.

(there are links in those articles that are not inserted here)

And there is that expanding US/NATO activity with placing their missile shields around the Black Sea that Russia perceives as a direct threat. That's like a mad chess tournament. But I've never been able to play/comprehend chess, so that 'rough and tumble' may have not much to do with the plane crash.

fwiw...

 

[transdimensional]

Propaganda: Ethiopian Airline crash off Beirut was an act of Al-Qaeda terror

Propaganda Alert:

Ethiopian Airline crash off Beirut was an act of Al-Qaeda terror

DEBKAfile Exclusive Report
February 10, 2010

Evidence has reached debkafile's counter-terror sources that the Ethiopian Airlines Boeing 737-800 which crashed after takeoff from Beirut on January 25, killing all 92 aboard, was blown up in mid-air.

This could be true.

This was an al-Qaeda operation timed for one month to the day after its failed attempt to destroy an American Northwest airliner bound for Detroit. It is becoming clear that either a bomb was planted on the Ethiopian flight with a timer or a passenger acted as suicide bomber.

The whole paragraph is a bundle of lies.

The rest is a mixed bag of half-truths and deceptive statements. Very interesting how they try to twist reality.

Here is the full text, including mentioning French undercover agents on board:

source: _http://www.debka.com/article/8599/

 

[anart]

Re: Propaganda: Ethiopian Airline crash off Beirut was an act of Al-Qaeda terror

The whole paragraph is a bundle of lies.

The rest is a mixed bag of half-truths and deceptive statements. Very interesting how they try to twist reality.

That's debka for you...

 

[rylek]

Sounds like this fits the bill for the reason for the secret team to bomb the Ethiopian airlines crash, killing the French ambassador's wife and a couple of other french intel assets. Given that we suspect the CIA was involved, it says a lot about just how much in bed the US is with Israel in terms of Israel's Arab blood lust... It seems that, unless something is done to stop them, the Israelis are planning another Lebanon slaughter soon. One year they murder thousands in Palestine, the next year they turn to Lebanon. I wonder if a large scale attack on Lebanon will constitute the "Israeli mistake" that is being predicted.

Pardon my ignorance but what kind of situation does the "Israeli mistake" refer to?

 

[Vulcan59]

Pardon my ignorance but what kind of situation does the "Israeli mistake" refer to?

Hi rylek,

My understanding is that the mistake referred to by Perceval is from the Session 29 December 2009 where the C's stated the following:

Q: (L) Could it be said that what we're doing is actually inducing these controlling actions?

A: Yes but that is actually good because it means that their desperation is being driven and they will make more mistakes and turn the masses against them sooner.

Q: (L) So the more positive things we do, and the more creative we become, the more it drives them to try to suppress and repress things in indirect ways to try to suppress and repress us without suppressing and repressing us directly - because that would be too obvious - and by so doing, they show their hand so to speak?

A: Yes

 

[Nicholas]

Pardon my ignorance but what kind of situation does the "Israeli mistake" refer to?

Hi rylek,

My understanding is that the mistake referred to by Perceval is from the Session 29 December 2009 where the C's stated the following:

Q: (L) Could it be said that what we're doing is actually inducing these controlling actions?

A: Yes but that is actually good because it means that their desperation is being driven and they will make more mistakes and turn the masses against them sooner.

Q: (L) So the more positive things we do, and the more creative we become, the more it drives them to try to suppress and repress things in indirect ways to try to suppress and repress us without suppressing and repressing us directly - because that would be too obvious - and by so doing, they show their hand so to speak?

A: Yes

I think it may also refer to Clif High's prediction of an "Israeli mistake" about possibly bombing Iran and unleashing a deadly nuclear cloud of some kind that was unexpected to occur.