• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

name change for US operations

dot23

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Aug 21, 2001
Messages
1,097
I was bemsued/amused last night to hear on the radio that the US operation in the Gulf, originally codenamed 'Infinite Justice', has had it's name changed after Muslim clerics complained.

In a scene almost out of Dr Strangelove, the clerics claimed that this name was an insult to all muslims, as only Allah has the power of Infinite Justice.

The US capitulated and have changed the codename to 'Enduring Freedom'.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1563000/1563722.stm

in the article above it doesnt' mention the clerics, but they were mentioned on London Live (from the BBC) last night.

Is this surreal or is it just me?

I also wondered whether the guy that comes up with these codenames also thinks of the titles of straight-to-video b-movies like 'dangerous intentions', 'extreme prejudice', and 'lethal endeavour' ;)

oh, and something I just spotted that just goes to show that we live in an era where words are progressively more and more meaningless
US missile cash for anti-terror war

oxymoronic or what...
 
My guess is that "Operation Glass Desert" was taken...
 
dot23 said:
I was bemsued/amused last night to hear on the radio that the US operation in the Gulf, originally codenamed 'Infinite Justice', has had it's name changed after Muslim clerics complained.

I also wondered whether the guy that comes up with these codenames also thinks of the titles of straight-to-video b-movies like 'dangerous intentions', 'extreme prejudice', and 'lethal endeavour' ;)

They may as well have called it 'Operation Where Is Osama Bin Laden?'

or

'Operation Please Hand Over Mr Osama Bin Laden Else We'll Come Over And Give You All A Jolly Good Thrashing, What?'
 
"Infinite justice" was a scary name. Why the effing hell would we want an "infinite" war?!

Operation "come out come out wherever you are", or Operation "coming, ready or not" would perhaps be apt.

Operation Enduring Freedom indeed. Have they got a bit of software that's a random military operation generator? Or are they naming them after episodes of Deep Space 9?!
 
It should be, Operation It Became Necessary to Destroy the World in Order to Save It.

Or possibly Op handbasket - destination hell.
Op careful with that nuke Eugene
Op it's the roaches' turn.
 
Who would want an infinite war?

The answer to who would want an 'infinite war' is an easy one.
The American Military-Industrial complex that's who.

Maybe they should have named it 'Operation Imminent Profits' or
' Operation My-Dad-Did-It-So-Why-Can't-I?'

It has been bad enough watching my fellow countrymen swallow the final summation of a reversal of supposed American ideals of egalitarianism and democracy by the awarding of the presidency to George W...he is essentially our emperor now..George the II as I refer to him now, especially given the unswerving deference to his administrations whims and wishes that has occured since Sept. 11th by our Congress and Senate.

Now it has rapidly become the case that no questioning of administration policy is acceptable, either by the average citizen or any other members of the American goverment. Since the military actions have begun the reporting of actions to the American public have been rapidly toned down. We have several carefully staged press conferences daily that are feed to us through the idiot box, from several different members of the administration, filled with carefully selected reporters asking , as if on cue, questions that have been sanitized and run through the White House press corps, Pentagon, and State Department censors before being trotted out as a glowing example of the American public being kept 'in the loop'.

If all that wasn't bad enough, George the II is essentially making demands upon the world. "You are on our side or the other side...There is no middle ground." In other words, you either whole-heartedly support American actions or you are a potential target for sanctions or worse.

It seems that Tony Blair can't wait to show just how loyal a lap dog he wants to be to our emperor either...

These events also seem to be an appropriate time to point out that fundamentalist Christians in America want something like this to happen..they want a conflagration in the MIddle East to explode into world wide war. So that their precious and long-awaited Armmagedon will finally come about. They have been waiting patiently for so long.

It's terrifying.

Ahhh..it was nice to rant for a bit.
 
Evilsprout said:
Have they got a bit of software that's a random military operation generator? Or are they naming them after episodes of Deep Space 9?!

Dunno about the military but Scotland Yard do have a random operation name generator:)
 
A good rant, Tarasque!

A real conspiracy theorist, however, would have suggested that the present anthrax scare has been deliberately created by the US govt. as a way of distracting attention from what actually happened on Sep 11th.

If the 4th jet wasn't shot down by the USAF, why not? How come FOUR jets were hijacked with so little apparent response, or even notification to those supposedly in power?

Me, I know nothing, but something seem odd.
 
im still laughing about the post on here the other day that pointed out the initials of The War On Terrorism TWOT lol had me laughing for ages

i think they should call it - operation .......err can we have him please we calnt find him so till we do we'll keep on bombing you ok

casio
 
That's the American term for this war, Cas. Most often in the UK it's referred to as The War Against Terrorism... go figure. :D

The US has jumped in with both feet, and will very likely lose a lot more than they bargained for - they've already broken the first rule of a fight. Most Americans seem to have no respect for their enemy. Those responsible deserve contempt, but never underestimate the ability of a foe... (as taught in all martial arts)

Operation Second Term...
Operation 51%...
Operation Why Doesn't The Country With The Most Finely Honed Military Machine in the World Seem To Know What To Do In A War?
 
i was trying to remember The War Against Terrorism but couldnt and all i kept comming up with was TWOT but i mean what you said with its initials as the operation lol
 
They seemed to be implying on CNN today that they're going to pack up as winter is drawing in and it's Ramadan next month.
You can almost see the gathering of generals now:

"It's a bit chilly out, let's wrap things up for a bit."
"Yeah, Christmas is coming up and I've got tons of shopping to do."
"Right. See you next March, chaps."
 
Anthrax scare

I am more suspicious that the anthrax scare has been cooked up in order to keep the enviroment of fear heightened. A general feeling of unease and threat from outside is more conducive to growing a facist state than almost anything else.

It is also enlightening to following the trail of Bioport, the only U.S. company which produces the anthrax vaccine. It was bought out several years ago just to get the contract with the Pentagon (the only people the vaccine is sold to) and among the shareholders of the new company are a former member of the Joint Cheifs of Staff.

There are plenty of holes in the entire thing, and something big is definitely up. One of the big peices fell into place when I read that the military despot of Uzbekistan has wanted to run an oil pipeline across Afghanistan to a Pakistani seaport, but has been unable to do so.

Once the U.S. has it's puppet goverment installed in Afghanistan, with this decrepit, aged Shah fellow as it's figure (pure Machiavelli that) head, then I am sure that George the Second and Dick Cheney's oil industry freinds will be more than happy to accept contracts to build and maintain said pipeline, ship it over here and handle processing and distributing. Isn't that cozy?

Reminds one of the cushy deal worked out by George the First's oil buddies to handle the rebuilding of those oil wells and related equipment that Hussein supposedly destroyed during the rout of his forces from Kuwait and the now essentially occupied "No-Fly Zone".

What a beautiful world we live in .
 
im gettin some real negative vibes there m8 :D almost like you think its all a big hoax;)
well on the front of the paper it said hoaxers will get 7 years (i think it was 7) and if that is true and is to believed then i think G.W.B is going to be campaining from his cell if your right :D

cas
 
what I find ridiculous is that there have been 12 'reported' cases and *1* death, from an unhealthy man with a heart condition. There have been world-wide reports of powder filled envelopes, but only a couple of actual anthrax cases (if any). Surely if AQ are willing to kill thousands and have access to anthrax they'd just dump a load of it into the air over a large city, not post it to the editor of 'national inquirer'.

The news coverage has been a complete over reaction, there is no evidence to link the release of 'weapons grade' (how do you grade a bacteria?) to AQ, and it took several days for the press to admit that one of the largest anthrax producing countries is the US (I saw a list on the BBC site that had all the 'rogue' states listed but not the UK or US - both of whom have anthrax).

My view is it's either the FBI (to distract attention while they fiddle more 'evidence' against random muslims), or American militia (using the confusion and focus on muslims as a smokescreen).

I'd also like to see a list of those infected, and any correlation between them. So far we've had anchor men, editors and a couple of senators. Why would these people be on the same groups hit list? As I said, using anthrax as a weapon is inefficient in such small doses, and has the effect of 'rallying' the people, rather than unnerving/terrifying them. The reason people have been so shocked is because we percieve all those that died on 911 to be 'innocents' (I have issue with that, and also with the fact that many of them were no US citizens, therfore why does the US deserve aid/sympathy/support when they have been calling it an 'attack on world democracy'). Yet the people chosen are high profile media figures, in the main. Surely a covert attack using water or air would scare people more - not knowing if their going to be next etc.
 
Dot> yer argument is fine if yer final goal is to wipe people out, but the main purpose of these attacks (at least the 911, and *possibly* the anthrax) appears to be to apply pressure to the US to withdraw their troops from the Muslim holy land. In this case, then the "no-one is safe till you do what we say" point is being clearly exercised. Terrorism is more about threat and blackmail than actually killing people.

I think that it's unlikely the FBI are killing people... byt I would say it's perfectly possible that recent events have stirred up the resentment of militant (non-muslim) US citizens. As you said if there's a place to get Anthrax, it's the US (although actual availabilty doesn't neccesarily have a relation to availability).
 
The penalty for hoaxes

I must assume you are joking. Since these guys never pay for their wrongdoing. Iran-Contra, Irangate, etc., etc. ad naueseum should illustrate that.

The American Justice system operates something like a exorbitant poll tax. The degree of justice you get is directly proportional to how much money and pull you have.

And I don't think it's a hoax..it's more like a convoluted plot...just like almost everything that passes as an issue in American politics.
 
dot23 said:
what I find ridiculous is that there have been 12 'reported' cases and *1* death, from an unhealthy man with a heart condition. There have been world-wide reports of powder filled envelopes, but only a couple of actual anthrax cases (if any). Surely if AQ are willing to kill thousands and have access to anthrax they'd just dump a load of it into the air over a large city, not post it to the editor of 'national inquirer'.

None trivial. Surely it would require the use of a cropsprayer type aircraft to do it anywhere near effectively. As has been reported previously, there was evidence that the suspects had been investigating crop spraying aircraft. Following this revelation, I beleive all cropsprayers were grounded. (Not sure what the currect status is.)

Also perhaps you are missing the point of what has occured withj the anthrax. (See below)


The news coverage has been a complete over reaction, there is no evidence to link the release of 'weapons grade' (how do you grade a bacteria?) to AQ, and it took several days for the press to admit that one of the largest anthrax producing countries is the US (I saw a list on the BBC site that had all the 'rogue' states listed but not the UK or US - both of whom have anthrax).


First off, according to articles in the better end of the press, a weapons grade anthrax is one suitable for turing into a weapon. This should

a) Be virulent
b) Have spore sizes in the correct range. If the spores are too large they won't get inhaled as they won't form an aerosol. If they are too small then they will be so light that they are easily exhaled. According to the article, tihs requires a fair amount of effort.

If you find spores that match this pretty narrow definition, then I presume you are dealing with weapons grade anthrax.

As regards the production of anthrax, there are a range of legitimate reasons for doing so. It is a disease that affects people and livestock across the world, and hence producing quantities to carry out research doesn't seem too outlandish. Also, given recent events, you would need to produce quantities of the bacteria in order to understand how to deal with the use of anthrax as a weapon.

You might argue that the production exceeds that required to perform these tasks but I haven't seen any figures and hence wouldn't like to comment. (Also the US used to provide samples to research groups across the world, who were engaged in similar types of work.)


My view is it's either the FBI (to distract attention while they fiddle more 'evidence' against random muslims), or American militia (using the confusion and focus on muslims as a smokescreen).


Note that US officials were very carfeul to state that they hadn't found a link between the attacks, and the events of 11th September. Mind you, you would be a fool if you hadn't at least considered the possibility.

Are you suggesting that the FBI have deliberately targeted the victims?


I'd also like to see a list of those infected, and any correlation between them. So far we've had anchor men, editors and a couple of senators. Why would these people be on the same groups hit list? As I said, using anthrax as a weapon is inefficient in such small doses, and has the effect of 'rallying' the people, rather than unnerving/terrifying them.


If you only have limited quantities of anthrax what would you do? Aum Shinrikyo (sp?) attempted to carry out an anthrax attack. It appears that it was unsuccessful because of problems in dispersing the spores. By targeting the people that they have, the terrorists (whoever they are) *have* caused widespread panic. If people are not unerved/terrified then how do you explain the run on gasmasks (both in the US and the UK) and the sudden surge in people acquiring the antibiotic Cipro (with all of its unpleasant side-effects.) Why have sorting offices, and many other buildings been evacuated?



The reason people have been so shocked is because we percieve all those that died on 911 to be 'innocents' (I have issue with that, and also with the fact that many of them were no US citizens, therfore why does the US deserve aid/sympathy/support when they have been calling it an 'attack on world democracy'). Yet the people chosen are high profile media figures, in the main. Surely a covert attack using water or air would scare people more - not knowing if their going to be next etc.


Why do you say that about the people killed in the attacks? Is it fair to say that the attack was motivated by an ill defined rage against capitalism/globalisation etc. (I admit to getting annoyed by a letter in the Guardian newspaper that said something to the effect that "the attack on the WTC does not advance cause of workers across the world." Well neither does it advance the cause of shoemakers and jugglers. A lot of people, on both sides, have attempted to define the cause in terms of their own interests. Frankly I sense a rather sick bandwagon.)

The US deserves sympathy because the people were predominantly either US citizens or people that regarded the US as a home to them. The attack was carried out on US soil, using US aircraft and also destroyed and damaged things that were of highly symbolic value. Why is the US not deserving of our sympathy? (That is not to say that other groups are *not* deserving of sympathy.)

Regarding the nature of the targets, the media are presumably sufficiently high profile (apart from the politicians, they probably the ones most associated with presenting US policy around the world.) As regards the covert attack through the air, I refer you to my earlier comment. Regarding the possibility of an attack via the water system, remember that your average tap water is sterilised before entering the water mains. You need to have live bacteria reaching the victim in sufficient quantities to infect them.
 
casio said:
im gettin some real negative vibes there m8... almost like you think its all a big hoax

Cas. Picture this:

If you wanted to attack a powerful nation via a bioweapon you would use a far more deadlier and contagious disease than Anthrax. Anthrax in effectivly non-contagious; once it is in a someone it goes no further. If you want to hurt a nation you use something that will spread like a wildfire through the population, spreading death and chaos as it goes, and neutralising them as a opponent. You wouldn't use a bioagent which can be neutralised with a penecillin jab and takes a few days to make itself known.

On the other hand if you wanted to terrorise a population via a bioweapon you would use something which is easily controlled (won't spread) and can be easily and cheaply neutralised. In that case Anthrax is the perfect terror weapon since it's only deadly if it not treated in time but is known to be a killer.

Just a thought; I'm not suggesting anything here I'm jsut reporting the facts as I see them.

Niles
 
i was kidding m8

i thought the post i was responding to was right like your post was right

cas
 
Niles Calder said:
Cas. Picture this:

If you wanted to attack a powerful nation via a bioweapon you would use a far more deadlier and contagious disease than Anthrax. Anthrax in effectivly non-contagious; once it is in a someone it goes no further. If you want to hurt a nation you use something that will spread like a wildfire through the population, spreading death and chaos as it goes, and neutralising them as a opponent. You wouldn't use a bioagent which can be neutralised with a penecillin jab and takes a few days to make itself known.

I'm not entirely sure that this is the case. One of the advantages with anthrax is presumably that a lot of work has already been performed around the world on how to use it as a weapon. (The contagion issue that you raise would appear to make it very suitable as weapon of war. You wouldn't want it to spread to your own people.)

Remember that most of the nasty disease causing agents that people are talking about are bacteria. These are exactly the sort of agents that antibiotics are effective against. (Why can't you treat flu with antibiotics? Because it is a virus.) Perhaps viruses are difficult to turn into a weapon? (Anthrax forms inert spores, which presumably make it easier to transport and disperse among targets.)

Just a few thoughts.
 
Back
Top