READ FROM TOP

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

by Dominique Delawarde

When we talk about Russia and its presidential election, the French citizen Lamda asks himself a lot of questions.

Among the main ones, I will of course take up those which have occupied our politicians and our Russophobic media over the last two years and which have been treated by them with the seriousness and impartiality that we know them to be (humor).

1. Is Russia on the verge of economic collapse as Mr Lemaire claimed or in a state of cessation of payments as Mr Macron proclaimed in March 2022?
2. Were the Russian elections truly democratic?
3. Is Vladimir Putin's victory (final score and participation rate) as resounding as the official Russian figures say? Or is this a rigged election? How was it controlled?

It is these three questions and a few others that I will attempt to answer in the following lines.

Arriving in Moscow shortly before dawn on March 13, 2024, I was struck by the hyper abundance of light (urban lighting and decorations that we find at home during the end-of-year celebrations) and by the heating , excessive for my taste and always above 22°, in all public places. The city's light decorations are not even turned off during the day, since they always remain on at noon or in the afternoon. This is clearly not good for the planet. Energy sobriety is certainly not yet a concern for Russian communities and populations, which can be understood when we see that the cost of energy is almost four times lower than ours. The cost of a liter of SP fuel is around 50 rubles, or 50 euro cents.

In short, Moscow and Saint Petersburg are undoubtedly “Light” cities, much more so than Paris or Nantes. Whether or not it is linked to the light, the people who are active or strolling in the street seem much less gloomy, less stressed, more serene, than those we can meet in the streets of Paris or Nantes. Without wanting to stigmatize anyone, the Russians seem statistically smaller than the populations of Western NATO (especially the US), and the women generally seem more feminine, more smiling, even prettier than those who let themselves go with us. I would like to point out, at this stage, that I was completely free in my movements and in the choice of places where I wanted to go. Which means that I was not accompanied by any “political commissar” who could have manipulated me by showing me the “Potemkin” aspects of Russia. (A beautiful facade, but nothing behind…)

Shopping centers are remarkably busy. The luxury brands which, according to our media, left Russia due to sanctions, returned, without making any noise, a few months after the start of the conflict. They can be found both in the “tax-free” areas of airports and in the boutiques of large shopping centers (Dior, Chanel, Kalvin Klein, Versace, etc.). This is a sign that there is purchasing power in Russia…

The Anglo-Saxon Bentley dealership, a stone's throw from my hotel, has never closed, unlike the French Renault, which behaved like a good soldier of US globalism and which will pay the price for its future growth.

For me, who visited the country in the early 2000s, it's like night and day. And not the slightest sign that could suggest that the country is at war. In eight days, I met four soldiers who were returning to the front after a leave with their gear on their backs at the Moscow station. I only saw two injured people, one of whom was in a wheelchair, inside a polling station.

The life, the bustle of the streets, the behavior and the faces of the populations are undeniable signs that Russia is a country moving towards prosperity and confident in its future, country whose economy works and improves day by day unlike ours.

Another point which does not mislead, the churches are open and full, Young children's choir concerts are organized there, and there is no shortage of smiles and applause at the young people's musical performances. In schools transformed into polling stations, we can see hundreds of children's drawings posted on the walls. These drawings, through their colors and themes, reveal an undeniable ambient optimism. Nothing that evokes war and its horrors in these drawings.

Finally, one last point seems important to me. In some schools/polling stations, portraits of school alumni who died as heroes during the Great Patriotic War are displayed in banners (large format) on the ceiling of the entrance hall. Each child can therefore spend every morning under the gaze of his great-grandfather who always watches over him. This is obviously not without consequences on the state of mind and the real patriotism of young Russian adults who are those that the French Army (or what remains of it today) would have to face in the event of engagement in Ukraine. Generalissimo Macron and his acolytes, who clearly do not know what patriotism is, the history of their country and who know nothing about the military, have a lot, a lot to worry about.

Wouldn't it be time to stop provoking and annoying Russia, by playing the innocent "democrat" and approaching its borders, casually, our bases and our NATO rockets, under the pretext, of course, of to defend itself against a Russia that would be imperialist and aggressive.

WHO constantly practices accusatory inversion? WHO has taken control of Eastern Europe since 1990? WHO invaded, by betraying its word every day, until the Minsk agreements, Russia's space of influence and protection? What would the USA say if Russia took control of Mexico and installed its hypersonic vectors there?

When it comes to major elections in the world, the NATO West and its media propaganda machine only validate those of leaders who agree to submit to unipolar US-NATO hegemony. The elections of opponents of the US-NATO system and values ​​are systematically contested by those who practice adversarial inversion and the Pompeo doctrine: “We lied, cheated, stole, it's like we had all the training to learn how to do it. This reminds us of the glory of the American experiment».

Westerners have thus contested and rejected the results of the elections in Syria, Iran, Venezuela and Belarus. No wonder they are now doing it in Russia with the delusional mantra, taken up in France and Canada by leaders who are heavy cocaine consumers: “Putin kills his opponents (Navalny) to win". Clearly, according to the narrative from Paris and Ottawa, Navalny would surely have won if Vladimir Putin had not killed him with his own hands...

These stories make the whole world laugh, but Paris, Ottawa and the media that relay them are not afraid of ridicule, because ridicule does not kill.

So let's get down to business: testifying to what I saw. As with us, polling stations are set up in public places (schools, cultural or sports centers). I visited eight in three days.

A polling station in the Saint Petersburg region has around 1500 voters divided into 4 to 6 geographical sectors, which translates into 4 to 6 electoral lists of around 300 people, each maintained by a member of the office's electoral commission. .

The voter presents himself before the person in charge of his sector, marks the line of the list which concerns him, receives a single ballot containing the names of the 4 candidates standing in the election, ticks the box of the candidate of his choice at the out of sight (polling booth) and slips his ballot into the ballot box which counts each of the ballots slipped into the ballot box live by a mechanical system.

An observer can therefore at any time know the participation rate of the polling station since he knows the number of voters registered in the station displayed at the entrance and the number of ballots slipped into the ballot box which is displayed on the counter thereof.

Since the Covid crisis during which the elections were, for the first time, spread over 3 days to avoid the risks of contamination linked to too great a human concentration around the polling stations, and to facilitate a more fluid flow of the electoral body, the Russians renewed this system because it led to a significant and logical increase in participation.

The enormous difference between the Russian system and ours therefore lies in the duration of the vote. With us, a single 10-hour day (8 a.m. to 00 p.m.), or even 18 hours in big cities, with queues at rush hour. For the Russians, 3 days of 12 hours, or 36 hours of voting, which avoids queues, streamlines voting operations and allows everyone to choose the slot that suits them best over 3 days. In Russia, you can therefore vote on Friday, then go “fishing” on the weekend.

Furthermore, to allow as many people as possible to vote, an internet voting option has been opened, subject to prior notice and draconian security measures. Offices have been set up in train stations, airports, on boats, in military units in operation to allow as many people as possible to exercise the right to vote. 

Under such conditions, to which we must add the war situation, participation should logically reach a record figure for Russia, which it did with 77, 44%: https://tass.com/politics/1763249

How was the sincerity of the vote checked? In Saint Petersburg, representatives of accredited candidates had the possibility of observing, throughout the voting period, the voting operations inside the polling stations. We met some and asked them about their mission.

The voting operations and especially the approaches to the ballot box were constantly filmed. The video recordings were available in the event of a dispute in this or that office. More than 1100 international observers from 129 countries were accredited to observe these elections. By a fair distribution in proportion to the world population, nearly 80% of these observers came from the global South, and from states close to multipolarity, the remainder coming from the NATO West.

We begin to dream that the elections in the NATO West, and particularly in the USA, could also be observed, in situ, by the global South. But I digress, the elections in Western NATO are obviously perfectly democratic by definition and have no need for this degree of external control, and even less so from the countries of the Global South.

What about Vladimir Putin’s score of 87,28%? No challenge to the voting results was made by the candidates opposing Vladimir Putin in this election. Only Western politicians, relayed by the media, have, as usual, contested the sincerity of the result, suggesting that Putin only won the elections by assassinating his opponents (Navalny). Well then !

It should be noted that in each Russian election involving Putin, the West tries in vain to interfere in the electoral process to reduce, as much as possible, Putin's score.

Let's remember this famous Skripal affair (prank?), which occurred a few days before the Russian presidential election of March 2018: a coincidence so strange that I made a humorous article about it.

• https://reseauinternational.net/lettre-de-vladimir-a-theresa-general-dominique-delawarde

Western interference was double in 2024 as the calendar “coincidences” reveal. There was the strange death of Navalny attributed to Vladimir Putin himself as was the attempted assassination of Skripal 6 years earlier, but there was also this famous speech by President Macron saying “trouposol speech» occurred on the eve of the Russian election.

In this speech, E. Macron made it known that he did not blame the Russian people, but the Kremlin Regime (meaning Vladimir Putin), suggesting to the Russian voter that the removal of Vladimir Putin would bring peace to Europe.

As with the Skripal affair, 6 years earlier, these two very crude attempts at interference came to nothing and benefited candidate Putin.

Putin is the man who has turned the country around over the past 20 years, restoring its greatness and pride. The Russian economy is functioning well with +3,6% growth compared to a West that is at a standstill or in recession. Russia's image in the world (excluding Western NATO) has never been better.

Which Russian voter would change such a captain when the NATO threat is perceived very concretely by everyone? And while Russia is reaping diplomatic and military successes every day?

Putin's main electoral asset was a NATO considered aggressive.

The Russian electorate simply formed a SACRED UNION around its head of state, which was predictable and logical. This is what several voters told us who had never voted for Putin until now, but who did so this time.

We understand that the great Western leaders, almost all poorly elected, none of whom have a score of more than 50% of registered voters, find it difficult to admit that a leader could be much better elected than them.

My conclusion is clear:

YES the Russian economy is doing much better than ours.

YES the participation rate was very logically high (77,44%) both thanks to the measures taken to encourage voting and because of the war situation against NATO.

YES Vladimir Putin's score (87,28% of votes cast) is not only plausible but logical. Remember that Putin had obtained 55 million votes in 2018 and that he will obtain 65 million in 2024 in a different context, out of 112,3 million registered voters, i.e. 57,9% of registered voters.

But it’s up to everyone to form their own opinion of course. The narratives of BFM TV as well as LCI are so convincing... The future will tell us whether the Russians were right to support Vladimir Putin.

Dominique Delawarde

https://en.reseauinternational.net/temoignage-sur-moscou-et-saint-petersbourg-12-20-mars-2024-dans-le-cadre-de-lelection-presidentielle-russe/

READ FROM TOP

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

SEE ALSO: https://sputnikglobe.com/20240324/u-turn-over-atlantic-how-russian-pm-primakov-showed-moscow-wont-be-us-satellite-1117506919.html

March 24, 2024

ALERT MEMORANDUM FOR: The President

FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity

SUBJECT: On the Brink of Nuclear War

Mr. President:

France is reportedly preparing to dispatch a force of some 2,000 troops — roughly a reinforced brigade built around an armored battalion and two mechanized battalions, with supporting logistical, engineering, and artillery troops attached — into Ukraine sometime in the not-so-distant future.

This force is purely symbolic, inasmuch as it would have zero survivability in a modern high-intensity conflict of the scope and scale of what is transpiring in Ukraine today. It would not be deployed directly in a conflict zone, but would serve either as (1) a screening force/tripwire to stop Russia’s advance; or (2) a replacement force deployed to a non-active zone to free up Ukrainian soldiers for combat duty. The French Brigade reportedly will be supplemented by smaller units from the Baltic states.

This would be introducing combat troops of a NATO country into a theater of war, making them “lawful targets” under the Law of War.

Such units would apparently lack a NATO mandate. In Russia’s view, however, this may be a distinction without a difference. France appears to be betting – naively – that its membership in NATO would prevent Russia from attacking French troops. Rather, it is highly likely that Russia would attack any French/Baltic contingent in Ukraine and quickly destroy/degrade its combat viability.

In that case, French President Macron may calculate that, after Russian attacks on the troops of NATO members – NATO mandate or not – he could invoke Article 5 of the NATO Charter and get the NATO alliance to intervene. Such intervention would likely take the form of aircraft operating from NATO nations – and perhaps include interdiction missions against tactical targets inside Russia. 

On Precipice of Nuclear War?

Doctrinally, and by legal right, Russia’s response would be to launch retaliatory strikes also against targets in NATO countries. If NATO then attacks strategic targets inside Russia, at that point Russia’s nuclear doctrine takes over, and NATO decision-making centers would be hit with nuclear weapons.

We do not believe Russia will initiate a nuclear attack against the U.S., but rather would leave it up to the United States to decide if it wants to risk destruction by preparing to launch a nuclear strike on Russia. That said, Russian strategic forces have improved to the point that, in some areas – hypersonic missiles, for example – its capability surpasses that of the U.S. and NATO.

In other words, the Russian temptation to strike first may be a bit stronger than during past crises, and we are somewhat less confident that Russia would want to “go second”. Another disquieting factor is that the Russians are likely to believe that Macron’s folly has the tacit approval of some key U.S. and other Western officials, who seem desperate to find some way to alter the trajectory of the war in Ukraine – the more so, as elections draw near.

What Needs to Be Done

Europe needs to understand that France is leading it down a path of inevitable self-destruction.

The American people need to understand that Europe is leading them to the cusp of nuclear annihilation.

Since Russian leaders may suspect that Macron is working hand in glove with Washington, the U.S. needs to make its position publicly and unambiguously clear.

And if France and the Baltics insist on sending troops into Ukraine, it must also be made clear that such action has no NATO mandate; that Article 5 will not be triggered by any Russian retaliation; and that the U.S. nuclear arsenal, including those nuclear weapons that are part of the NATO deterrent force, will not be employed as a result of any Russian military action against French or Baltic troops.

Void of such clarity, France would be leading the American people down a path toward a nuclear conflict decidedly not in the interests of the American people – or of humanity itself.

FOR THE STEERING GROUP, 

VETERAN INTELLIGENCE PROFESSIONALS FOR SANITY

• William Binney, former Technical Director, World Geopolitical & Military Analysis, NSA; co-founder, SIGINT Automation Research Center (ret.)
• Richard Black, former Virginia State Senator; Colonel, USA (ret.); Former Chief, Criminal Law Division, Judge Advocate General (associate VIPS)
• Marshall Carter-Tripp, Foreign Service Officer (ret) and former Office Director in the State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research
• Bogdan Dzakovic, former Team Leader of Federal Air Marshals and Red Team, FAA Security, (ret.) (associate VIPS)
• Graham E. Fuller, Vice-Chair, National Intelligence Council (ret.)
• Philip Giraldi, C.I.A., Operations Officer (ret.)
• Matthew Hoh, former Capt., USMC, Iraq and Foreign Service Officer, Afghanistan (associate VIPS)
• James George Jatras, former U.S. diplomat and former foreign policy adviser to Senate leadership (Associate VIPS)
• Larry C. Johnson, former C.I.A. and State Department Counter Terrorism officer
• John Kiriakou, former C.I.A. Counterterrorism Officer and former senior investigator, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
• Karen Kwiatkowski, former Lt. Col., U.S. Air Force (ret.), at Office of Secretary of Defense watching the manufacture of lies on Iraq, 2001-2003
• Douglas Macgregor, Colonel, USA (ret.) (associate VIPS)
• Ray McGovern, former U.S. Army infantry/intelligence officer & C.I.A. analyst; C.I.A. Presidential briefer (ret.)
• Elizabeth Murray, former Deputy National Intelligence Officer for the Near East, National Intelligence Council & C.I.A. political analyst (ret.)
• Todd E. Pierce, MAJ, U.S. Army Judge Advocate (ret.)
• Pedro Israel Orta, former C.I.A. and Intelligence Community (Inspector General) officer
• Scott Ritter, former MAJ, USMC; former U.N. Weapons Inspector, Iraq
• Coleen Rowley, FBI Special Agent and former Minneapolis Division Legal Counsel (ret.)
• Lawrence Wilkerson, Colonel USA, ret.), Distinguished Visiting Professor, College of William and Mary (associate VIPS)
• Sarah G. Wilton, CDR, USNR, (ret.); Defense Intelligence Agency (ret.)
• Kirk Wiebe, former Senior Analyst, SIGINT Automation Research Center, NSA
• Robert Wing, former Foreign Service Officer (associate VIPS)
• Ann Wright, retired U.S. Army reserve colonel and former U.S. diplomat who resigned in 2003 in opposition to the Iraq War

Background: Earlier VIPS Memos for President Biden on Ukraine

May 1, 2022

MEMORANDUM FOR: The President
FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
SUBJECT: Nuclear Weapons Cannot Be Un-invented, Thus …

“The growing possibility that nuclear weapons might be used, as hostilities in Ukraine continue to escalate, merits your full attention.” 

++++++++++++++++++++++

Sept. 5, 2022

MEMORANDUM FOR: The President
FROM: VIPS
SUBJECT: Ukraine Decision Time & Secretary of Defense

“If Austin tells you Kyiv is beating back the Russians, kick the tires”

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Jan. 26, 2023

ALERT MEMORANDUM FOR: The President
FROM: VIPS
SUBJECT: Leopards to Ukraine: Decisions in an Intelligence Vacuum

“None of the newly promised weaponry will stop Russia from defeating what’s left of the Ukrainian army. If you have been told otherwise, replace your intelligence and military advisers with competent professionals – the sooner the better.”

“There is a large conceptual – and exceptionally dangerous – disconnect. Simply stated, it is not possible to “win the war against Russia” AND avoid WWIII. It is downright scary that Defense Secretary Austin may think it possible. In any case, the Kremlin has to assume he thinks so. It is a very dangerous delusion.”

++++++++++++++++++++++++

January 25, 2024

ALERT MEMORANDUM FOR: The President

FROM: VIPS

SUBJECT: Throwing Good Money After Bad

“On Jan. 26, 2023, we reminded you that National Intelligence Director Avril Haines had said Russia was using up ammunition extraordinarily quickly and could not indigenously produce what it was expending.”

“On July 13, you said Putin “has already lost the war”. You may have gotten that from C.I.A. Director William Burns who, a week before, wrote an op-ed in The Washington Post saying: “Putin’s war has already been a strategic failure for Russia – its military weaknesses laid bare.” Both statements are incorrect. Nor is the war a “stalemate”, as Jake Sullivan has claimed more recently.”

https://consortiumnews.com/2024/03/25/vips-memo-the-french-road-to-nuclear-war/

READ FROM TOP

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

France-Algeria — two centuries of history. When the French army “pacified” with napalm

Raphaëlle BRANCHE

To talk about the use of napalm by France during the war of independence is to return to state denial. Like other chemical weapons, this product was used despite the Geneva conventions to which Paris was a signatory. Although it is difficult to draw up a complete assessment today, the testimonies are there to remind us of the extent of this violence.

The French authorities will repeat it without trembling: “Napalm strictly prohibited and never used in military operations in Algeria”. This lie clearly stated by the resident minister Robert Lacoste in 1957 was repeated under the Fifth Republic. At the Quai d'Orsay, it is assured that the French army "has never used napalm" and that "permanent instructions from the French military high command in Algeria prohibit the use of this product."

If France cannot recognize the use of this gelled gasoline used in incendiary bombs, it is because this weapon is prohibited by international conventions to which the country is a signatory. Its use would also contradict the fiction of simple law enforcement operations carried out in French Algeria since November 1954.

A country in flames

What Paris, Geneva or New York ignore has, however, become obvious in the Algerian mountains where the French army is fighting against the resistance fighters of the National Liberation Army (ALN). The forests which steal these fighters from French planes are particularly targeted: dropped from the air, the napalm immediately ignites the surface on which it is spread, which makes it particularly formidable in wooded regions.

French testimonies also confirm what the separatists denounce as Algeria sinks deeper into war. In 1959, Hubert Beuve-Méry, the director of the newspaper Le Monde, became certain of its use after speaking with Robert Lacoste's successor, Paul Delouvrier. Shortly before, a corporal had sent a letter to the newspaper to reveal the reality hidden behind an official dispatch speaking of "rebels put out of action with the help of the aviation": "Having participated in the encirclement and the reduction of the farm where [the “rebels”] were entrenched, I can tell you that they were in reality burned alive, along with around ten civilians including two women and a girl of around ten years old, by three bombs napalm launched by naval aircraft", not far from Sétif, August 14, 1959.

The pilots know perfectly well what they are dropping, and so do the soldiers who request their ground support. The use of napalm being prohibited, we opted for coded language: “special cans”. In the Bou Saada sector, southeast of Algiers, an “air action using 250-pound bombs and special cans on a rebel camp” was recorded at the end of September 1959.

Operation reports also mention the effects of these “bombing by special canisters” as in this report of an operation of February 23 and 24, 1959 which indicates: “Rebel losses: 6 corpses counted including a sergeant and a corporal. Human debris discovered in an area treated with special cans and corresponding to 5 rebels spotted by an observer. Sometimes, the camouflage gives way, as when the 14th parachutist regiment recounts a clash between several elite regiments and their enemies at the beginning of April 1961. The “reduction of the nest of resistance” having failed in the face of the “violent and precise fire of the rebels” , the intervention of fighter aviation is requested. The regiment's march log notes that "rockets and napalm bombs were used against rebel entrenchments."

“A horrible smell”

Mohamed Kaced was one of these “rebels” targeted by bombings. The cave where, injured, he hid was spotted by the air force: “They threw napalm at us.” One of his companions is affected:

The soldier who had been burned, what were we going to do to him? If we touched it, we would be burned too. What was to be done then? You had to take dirt and throw it on him or take a rag and cover him. We had to do it like that and above all avoid getting burned too. Because the flames can touch you very quickly. »

Khadija Belguenbour watched helplessly as an infirmary was bombed: There was a mountain right in front: they used napalm. There was a hospital, well an infirmary, where they hid the wounded. I saw them, they were trying to escape... A horrible smell. They rolled on the ground and their flesh remained on the stones. They were screaming. This cry still comes to my ears from time to time. Later, she herself received a drop of napalm and left a hole in her head.

When the air force approaches, terror seizes those on the ground. If strafing on the ground is feared, napalm gives war its infernal colors. Meriem Mokhtari still mentions it with precision in 2020:

“The plane that launched the napalm... You see, the lava from the volcanoes... The fire is coming, like a blaze... In the forest, we also saw the chickens fleeing with their chicks... the dogs. .. the animals... The horses were galloping, and panting... The civilians, women carrying their groceries... the old men... There was a woman who was hit by the napalm... she was grilled like food that is grilled... it was charred by napalm... Afterwards, in the forest, the napalm caused a fire... So people fought it with water and earth... There were some who took blankets to protect their tent from the fire. (...) The napalm had been thrown from the top of a slope, so the fire spread very quickly... We had nowhere to hide from the fire. So you run, until you find a stream... and you stay there. »

Corporal Jean Forestier also evokes “gigantic red sheaves topped with enormous black mushrooms” caused by napalm. One morning in April 1959, his section was sent to the report: “Twenty-one bodies were counted, ten others were found burned by napalm”

For the ICRC, concerned with respecting the Geneva Conventions, it is “the use of this weapon on non-military objectives” which constitutes a flagrant illegality of international humanitarian law by France.

But the ICRC cannot carry out an in-depth investigation on this subject while Paris still denies being at war in Algeria. The Swiss delegate, in charge of several missions in Algeria on the fate of the prisoners, nevertheless claims to have “acquired the conviction [...] that the air force used, quite commonly, napalm for its bombings”

Was it indiscriminate use?

After eight years of conflict in Indochina which had already seen the use of this weapon, the French authorities were not unaware of its characteristics. However, while the official denial of the state of war does not allow us to argue on the possibility of limiting the use of napalm in combat against a clearly recognized armed enemy, it is the nature of the Algerian relief which regularly provides a argument to those who advocate its use. Where the nature of the enemy eludes, geography provides the ultimate justification for the use of "this product to fight against bands of outlaws entrenched in rocky and desert regions where the intervention of conventional weapons results in significant losses or delays incompatible with the fluidity of the rebels. This is what the Commander-in-Chief in Algeria defended in the spring of 1956 with his minister, putting forward as a precaution a reservation that he knew was essential: “In no case will the use of this product be tolerated in the mechtas, villages or places of residence and [that] I would reserve the decision to use them when the other usable weapons have proven ineffective.”

Has the restricted and controlled use proposed by the Commander-in-Chief convinced political leaders? The persistence of official lies until the end of the war, just like lexical camouflage, testifies at the very least to a vague delimitation in its use. The fight against the resistance fighters taking refuge in the caves has indeed given rise to research and experiments. Already in the spring of 1955, the first results concluded that certain chemicals could be used effectively, provided they stuck to caves and not open areas which exposed French soldiers too much. Regimental archives bear witness to these tests such as, among others, those of the 94th Infantry Regiment: in the summer of 1956, technical experiments took place, aiming to “make the use of caves impossible for the rebels by chemical processes ". Napalm was certainly the subject of similar tests. Chaplain of the 25th parachute division engaged in Constantinois, Father Henri Péninou testified to having seen “some tests of the use of napalm”, which were still approximate at the start of the war:

Yes, in any case I have the memory... passing by like that and dropping, dropping napalm bombs. We were asked to be very careful when we were in operation. But I felt like it was experimental. Afterwards, it would not surprise me if things continued and took an extension... [...] The relief of the terrain was a very, very dangerous relief, very favorable for the caches of the fellaghas, as well as for themselves as people than for equipment or supplies. So... dangerous also for the intervention units, when we were raking.

In the fall of 1957, the commander of an Alpine hunter regiment again explained to his superiors the benefits of this weapon. During a report on an operation in the Kouriet massif, in Kabylia, he describes the closure of a village then its strafing by aircraft, which did not prevent a violent clash:

“The losses we suffered were the work of only a few rebels, remarkable shooters and snipers in extremely bad and dangerous terrain. These rebels held a remarkable position and could only be dislodged when they ran out of ammunition. Unfortunately, proof has once again been made that in such terrain, to kill a rebel, we risk losing ten men. »

And he insists: “When the terrain is particularly bad and there is a risk of losses out of proportion to the results that could be obtained, it is certainly more advantageous to have the rebel band bludgeoned by the air force, B26s for example, and the use of napalm in this rocky terrain where the rebel can lie in remarkable ambush only seems effective

In the following years, the justification by the relief would be able to be combined with the development of the practice of prohibited zones. In these spaces officially forbidden to all civilians, the French army could claim to have only enemies. In fact, the discriminatory nature of the use of napalm was possible, at least in theory. This is why, with the systematic deepening of the war, and in particular the “Challe plan” from 1959, napalm could be used at a stage which no longer had anything experimental. Despite the obvious uncertainties about the precision of the bombings and the identity of those targeted, since the prohibited zones were in fact far from being empty of civilians, napalm was considered an effective weapon until the end of the conflict. The political authorities let this happen. Aware of the political and diplomatic consequences of such an admission, they nevertheless continued to prefer global denial. »

After 1962, the charred and petrified forests of the Algerian mountain ranges bore, for years, the testimony of this violence. As for the bodies reduced to charcoal blocks by these incendiary products, their images still haunt those who saw them.

Raphaëlle Branche is professor of contemporary history at the University of Paris Nanterre.

FOR FURTHER READING:

Claire Billet, “The war of the caves”, XXI, no. 58, April 1, 2022.

Raphaëlle Branche, Torture and the army during the Algerian War, 1954-1962, Gallimard, Paris.

ONE HAS TO ALSO KNOW THAT NAPALM IS A Thickening agent · ‎Naphthenic acid MIX... trade name “na-palm,” but it was more generically known as a firebomb fuel-gel mixture. Many variations of the chemicals ARE used in napalm AND ONE COULD GET AWAY BY NOT CALLING NA-PALM WHAT WAS naphthalene and palmitate  mixed with gasoline... THE THERMOBARIC BOMBS USE A THERMITE COMPOUND.

READ FROM TOP

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEh0g0NyKew

READ FROM TOP

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

GUSNOTE: GUS HAS NO WAY TO VERIFY THIS CONSPIRACY THEORY... BUT IT IS SO WELL CONSTRUCTED, THE CHARADE COULD BE TRUE. THIS COULD ALSO EXPLAIN WHY MANU MACRON WANTS TO PLAY NAPOLEON...

Overall summary

1. Introduction: this is not a rumor but a solid case
2. The genealogist’s intimate conviction
3. The Trogneux line: chocolate makers in Amiens
4. The “legend” of Brigitte Trogneux married to Emmanuel Macron
5. Two investigative journalists: Xavier Poussard and Natacha Rey
6. The family where Jean-Michel Trogneux grew up
7. Brigitte before 1990, according to “legend”
8. From Jean-Michel to Brigitte, their resemblance
9. André-Louis Auzière, Brigitte’s ghost husband
10. The biological mother of the three Auzière children, first hypothesis
11. The two families of Jean-Michel Trogneux
12. Brigitte Macron, born Jean-Michel Trogneux, turns 77 in 2022…
13. She has the bone structure of a man…
14. 1977-1990, Jean-Michel Trogneux and Pastor Joseph Doucé
15. 1991-1992, Brigitte in Amiens, her meeting with Emmanuel
16. 1993-2007, the beginnings of the Brigitte-Emmanuel couple
17. The family where Emmanuel Macron grew up
18. Emmanuel Macron and homosexuality
19. A dangerous psychopath runs France
20. A “legend” riddled with lies for diligent media
21. Macron the pain in the ass sets up an apartheid in France
22. The accusatory inversions of the Elysée’s perverted couple
23. Interrogations on Emmanuel Macron, his childhood and his lies
24. Could Joseph Doucé be the biological father of Emmanuel Macron ?
25. Jean-Michel Trogneux and Jean-Louis Auzière, great buddies in Algiers ?
26. From Algiers to Truchtersheim, the other buddy, Jean-Marc Uhrweiller
27. The magic trick of the two Brigitte Auzière
28. Brigitte, Jean-Michel’s younger sister, reportedly died in 1961
29. Brigitte Macron did not marry in 1974
30. Jean-Bri-Bri’s two marriages, in 1980 and 2007
31. Conclusion: family secrets, intertwined lives and pacts of silence
32. Linkage Tree, Role Play, Biographical Charts
33. Hypothesis summary table, index
34. Appendices A: Supplementary Documents and Data / Summary
35. Appendices B: Supplementary Comparisons / Summary
36. Appendix C: Macron and Covid / Summary
37. Appendix D: Developments, the #brigittegate / Summary

https://www.theinteldrop.org/2024/03/30/how-macrons-wife-changed-from-jean-michel-to-brigitt-trongneux/

READ FROM TOP

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

Macron again stated his view that Europe must devise a defence system of its own because it could no longer count on the United States to protect the bloc through NATO, giving likely Republican candidate Donald Trump’s comments and deep divisions within his party.

This would include not only the EU but the European Political Community, a grouping of EU and non-EU states, such as Britain, Macron said. He also said Europe faced aggression from Russia that was both military and aimed at internal disruption through disinformation and cyberattacks.

On Thursday, NATO issued a statement saying members were “deeply concerned” about recent malign activities on Allied territory, namely affecting Czech Republic, Estonia, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and the United Kingdom.

“These incidents are part of an intensifying campaign of activities which Russia continues to carry out across the Euro-Atlantic area, including on Alliance territory and through proxies,” it said.

Hungary, whose leader, Prime Minister Victor Orban, is seen as the strongest supporter of Putin within the EU, took issue with Macron’s latest statements.

“If a NATO member commits ground troops, it will be a direct NATO-Russia confrontation, and then it will be World War III,” Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto said.

https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/europe-must-prepare-to-send-troops-to-defend-ukraine-macron-says-20240503-p5folf.html

READ FROM TOP

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....