Mali conflict: France aiming for 'total reconquest'

[4me2]

Mali conflict: France aiming for 'total reconquest'


There are now some 2,000 French troops in Mali



France's military aim in Mali is its "total reconquest", French Defence Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian has said.
"We will not leave any pockets" of resistance, he told French television.
France has sent in 2,000 troops to help Malian forces fight Islamist militants who now control the northern half of the country.
Mr Le Drian said the former Islamist stronghold of Diabaly had not yet been retaken, even though the militants withdrew from the town two days ago.
However, he added that "everything points to a favourable evolution of the situation in Diabaly in the coming hours".
Mr Le Drian also said during his interview that seven French citizens who have been taken hostage in Niger and Mali in recent years "are alive", and there have been "contacts with hostage-takers".
There had been concerns for their fate following France's decision to send troops into Mali earlier this month.

'Confused situation'

French troops have been pushing northwards and are now in the town of Niono, 50km (30 miles) south of Diabaly.
Last week French forces carried out air strikes on Diabaly, which had fallen to the Islamists on 14 January.
Diabaly's mayor told the BBC that Malian and French forces have been patrolling the outskirts of the town, which is believed to be the base for the largest concentration of Islamists in central Mali.
The BBC's Mark Doyle, in Niono, says military patrols are being sent from there into Diabaly.

Foreign forces in Mali

• Some 2,000 French troops on the ground in Mali, with 500 or more to come
• French Mirage and Rafale jets, Gazelle helicopters
• Chad to send 2,000 troops
• Nigeria to send 1,200 troops; Senegal, Burkina Faso, Niger and Togo expected to send 500 each, and Benin 300
• Ghana and Guinea also to send troops
• UK providing two C17 cargo planes for French effort
• Belgium and Denmark also sending transport planes
• US to provide communications help

Officials say the Islamists left Diabaly on Friday. However, the Malian military suspects the fighters are hiding in a nearby forest, our correspondent says.
"The situation in the vicinity of Diabaly is confused for the moment," a French colonel who gave his name only as Frederic told our correspondent.
A senior Malian military figure cautioned that parts of Diabaly's population were sympathetic to the Islamists, and this made their task difficult.
Officials say Mali's army has also retaken the town of Konna, whose capture by rebels triggered the French intervention.
Jean-Yves Le Drian's comments to French television echo a similar sentiment by President Francois Hollande who said French troops would remain in the region for as long as is necessary "to defeat terrorism".
But French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius on Saturday stated that West African countries must "pick up the baton" in the offensive to drive out the Islamists.
Ivory Coast President Alassane Ouattara also called for more support for Mali, at a summit of West African leaders in Abidjan attended by Mr Fabius.
The French foreign minister has said both Russia and Canada had offered logistical support.
Islamist militants in Algeria who seized a gas facility in the Sahara desert, killing foreign hostages, claimed the attack was in retaliation for the French intervention in Mali, though many analysts doubt this.



French forces have bombed rebel bases in Mali, where Islamist rebels have threatened to advance on the capital Bamako from their strongholds in the north. France said it had decided to act to stop the offensive, which could create "a terrorist state at the doorstep of France and Europe".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-21109925




Personally I think the guy is seriously deluded if he thinks this can be be achieved by sending in 2000 French troops.

[blaggard]

I'm glad we are just lending them a couple of C17s, even that's way more than they did for us when we set sail for the Falklands.....

[BigBird]

I'm glad we are just lending them a couple of C17s, even that's way more than they did for us when we set sail for the Falklands.....

Not quite. (">

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...John-Nott.html

FRANCE was Britain's greatest ally during the Falklands war, providing secret information to enable MI6 agents to sabotage Exocet missiles which were desperately sought by Argentina, according to Sir John Nott, who was Defence Secretary during the conflict.
In his memoirs he reveals that while President Reagan was pressurising Lady Thatcher to accept a negotiated settlement France helped Britain to win the conflict.
Although Lady Thatcher clashed with President Mitterrand over the future direction of Europe, he immediately came to her aid after Argentine forces invaded the Falklands in April 1982.
"In so many ways Mitterrand and the French were our greatest allies," Sir John says. As soon as the conflict began, France made available to Britain Super-Etendard and Mirage aircraft - which it had supplied to Argentina - so Harrier pilots could train against them.
The French gave Britain information on the Exocet - which sank the Sheffield and Atlantic Conveyor - showing how to tamper with it.

They also let the Falklands bound fleet use French ports in West Africa. (">

[CzarJunkie]

France are only there because they fear French corporations will lose out if Mali becomes an islamic state. France, as well as other western powers, have various national and corporate interests in Mali and if it fell to an islamic government those would be lost. Its also worth noting that under French protection Mali has become one of the poorest nations on the planet. The fact that we and the US are providing both military and logistical support to the French proves this is just another example of our imperial endeavours.

If we want to create more Islamic fundamentalists we're going about it the right way.

[blaggard]

We're not providing Military support, logistical yes and that's more than we should.

[CzarJunkie]

We're not providing Military support, logistical yes and that's more than we should.

This is a NATO operation, make no mistake. SAS and Delta Force will be on the ground.

[BigBird]

France are only there because they fear French corporations will lose out if Mali becomes an islamic state. France, as well as other western powers, have various national and corporate interests in Mali and if it fell to an islamic government those would be lost. Its also worth noting that under French protection Mali has become one of the poorest nations on the planet. The fact that we and the US are providing both military and logistical support to the French proves this is just another example of our imperial endeavours.

If we want to create more Islamic fundamentalists we're going about it the right way.

Maybe the French are only there to protect their own interests, and maybe Britain and America shouldn't interfere in other countries. But do you really want another dozen or so Iran type states dotted around the globe hell bent on destroying any one or any country that don't follow Islam. There is nothing wrong with the true Islamic faith which is a peaceful religion, but if the fanatics get their way they will continue to twist it to suit their misguided beliefs, and others will follow them, not through choice, but through fear. That is why they must be stopped to protect future generations of all faiths, including Islam.

Terrorism, unjustified violence and the killing of innocent people are absolutely forbidden in Islam. Islam is a way of life that is meant to bring peace to a society, whether its people are Muslim or not. (">

[CzarJunkie]

But do you really want another dozen or so Iran type states dotted around the globe hell bent on destroying any one or any country that don't follow Islam.

Where do you get the idea Iran is hell bent on destroying anyone? You're watching and listening to too much Western propaganda. Do you know the history of Iran? I'd take a look at that first, then you might realise why Iran might be a little paranoid. History will tell you that Iran has never invaded another country or declared war on anyone for any reason. It was in a long war with Iraq, started by Saddam Hussein, who was then supported by the US, France and the UK.

Iran has every right to defend itself and by whatever means it deems appropriate. Israel is Iran's biggest threat and as Israel have a nuclear arsenal, then it's only sensible for Iran to also acquire the bomb. The region will then be more militarily balanced and safer as a result. MAD seems to work if the cold war and India/Pakistan are anything to go by.

[BigBird]

Maybe Iran wasn't the best example to chose but Iran is widely recognized as the worlds leading state sponsor of terrorism. Iran is careful enough to not get directly involved, but are quite happy to load the gun for someone else operating within another country, and not so easy to pin down. When I say Iran I don't mean the people. I have worked with a few Iranians and they are decent intelligent people, who given a choice would have a regime change in Iran tomorrow. (">

[burner1]

Maybe Iran wasn't the best example to chose but Iran is widely recognized as the worlds leading state sponsor of terrorism. Iran is careful enough to not get directly involved, but are quite happy to load the gun for someone else operating within another country, and not so easy to pin down. When I say Iran I don't mean the people. I have worked with a few Iranians and they are decent intelligent people, who given a choice would have a regime change in Iran tomorrow. (">

That's no different to what America did for the mujahideen during it's conflict with Russia though, or what China and the Russians did against the allied forces in Korea. As bad as each other and like has been said, If Iran are threatened by countries with nukes, then who has the right to say they can't have them?

[CzarJunkie]

Maybe Iran wasn't the best example to chose but Iran is widely recognized as the worlds leading state sponsor of terrorism. Iran is careful enough to not get directly involved, but are quite happy to load the gun for someone else operating within another country, and not so easy to pin down. When I say Iran I don't mean the people. I have worked with a few Iranians and they are decent intelligent people, who given a choice would have a regime change in Iran tomorrow. (">

The US and UK are the biggest state sponsors of terrorism in history. I could write a long list of democratically elected regimes that have been toppled by sponsoring military coups or supporting dictators through 'rebel' uprisings. The CIA and MI6 were instrumental in the reinstatement of the Shah of Iran.

In 1951, after the assassination of prime minister Ali Razmara, Dr. Mohammad Mosaddegh was elected prime minister by a parliamentary vote which was then ratified by the Shah. As prime minister, Mosaddegh became enormously popular in Iran after he nationalizedIran's petroleum industry and oil reserves. In response, the British government, headed by Winston Churchill, embargoed Iranian oil and successfully enlisted the United States to join in a plot to depose the democratically elected government of Mosaddegh. In 1953 US President Dwight D. Eisenhowerauthorized Operation Ajax. The operation, supported by the Shah, was successful, and Mosaddegh was arrested on 19 August 1953. The coup was the first time the US had openly overthrown an elected, civilian government of another sovereign state

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran

Also read this, it might open your eyes a little. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_...change_actions

Remember, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Just because our media label them as terrorists does not make it so.

[BigBird]

I agree with you about the US and the UK sponsoring military coups around the world to take the country into a direction that suits themselves. I disagree with what the US and UK have done, and are doing, in many parts of the world. However the type of terrorists that are prepared to plant a bomb on a London bus or in a tube station and killing many innocent people do need to be stopped. If that means preventing them having their own country as a base to train these terrorists and build their bombs, then for the sake of my future generations I have to agree with the need for some type of intervention. (">