According to a Belgian news report from earlier this month, the night of the attack at the Paris Bataclan, November 13, 2015, six French military personnel of the Sentinelle Project, were at the entry of the concert hall. However, they did not intervene because their rules of engagement did not include it, said member CDH Georges Dallemagne Bel RTL, hours before the report of the French commission investigating the attacks, according to La Libre.
“We know that the police did not intervene when she was present there. We know that the strength sentry, who had six soldiers armed before the Bataclan did not intervene when the carnage was occurring at the Bataclan,” the MP said. “They felt that they were not to intervene because their rules of engagement did not anticipate that they had to intervene. Their rules stipulated that they could protect themselves. It is entirely unbelievable, amazing.”
This report and confirmation from the MP have been conveniently ignored by all Western media.
As Prof Michel Chossudovsky points out, the justification for not intervening is indeed nonsensical. The mandate of France’s Sentinelle project under the auspices of the Ministery of Defense is clear in this regard: The Sentinelle Operation had been launched in January 2015 in relation to the Charlie Hebdo terror attacks. Its mandate (defined on November 13, 2015) :
“to Protect the French people and provide security in support of the Internal Security Forces (FSI) at the most sensitive locations in Paris and the provinces”
[original French]: “l’opération Sentinelle vise à protéger les Français et sécuriser, en appui des FSI, les sites les plus sensibles à Paris et en province.
Had these six individuals intervened, the death toll inside the nightclub could have been far less as they outnumbered the actual attackers inside.
The spokesperson for the Belgian Defense Minister, Steven Vandeput, noted that troops operating in the same capacity in Belgium would have stopped the attacks. “Our soldiers are [on the] street in a very specific context with the rules of engagement (the circumstances in which they may be subject to force, ie) adapted,” he said.
The Sentinelle troops were likely patrolling Paris that night due to the fact that French National Police met with German BKA federal police and German BND federal intelligence service to discuss an imminent pre-planned terrorist attack on Paris weeks before the attack.
According to a report by SOFREP:
Industrial targets were already being probed by suspected terrorists in France, and a bomb which failed to detonate was found in one facility. The explosives employed were those stolen in a little-publicized theft from a French military armory months prior. The French and German federal police and intelligence services strongly believed at that time that terrorists were casing soft targets inside Paris and that it was, “A matter of when, not if.” The only point of contention within the French security services was whether or not the target would be soft (civilian) or hard (military, government, industrial) in nature.
Tthe idea of government agents, whose stated mission is to protect the public from attacks, standing down during an actual attack should raise eyebrows. The government’s intentions behind the stand down are unknown. However, it shows that state agents most assuredly do not act in the interests of the people — even when their lives are in danger.
Courtesy of The Free Thought Project