Pan-Islamic merged mega thread

[cryco]

nice chart.
But Australia named their op Okra? Really?

 

[dimsum]

nice chart.
But Australia named their op Okra? Really?

It's an OP name.  That's all.

 

[The Bread Guy]

It's an OP name.  That's all.

Still not as cool as Op Chammal, named after a wind "blowing over northwest Iraq and the Persian Gulf (including Saudi Arabia and Kuwait)"

  8)

 

[Edward Campbell]

When I was a lad we were taught that codewords (the one word things we use to name Ops, etc, and opposed to the two word things we call nicknames and which our US allies use to name Ops) were not to have any special reference to anything at all. There was, if memory serves, a publication that contained a list of codewords, many of which seemed to have classical Greek and Roman origins.

 

[cryco]

I can understand that. Here at work we name  chips -microlelctronics, not doritos - (IP actually), after all kinds of unrelated things, but we don't choose silly sounding names like okra. ( I like to eat okra though)
We've used soccer player names, constellations, mountain ranges and so on. Someone would get fired if they named a project eggplant, or kefir.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

When I was a lad we were taught that codewords (the one word things we use to name Ops, etc, and opposed to the two word things we call nicknames and which our US allies use to name Ops) were not to have any special reference to anything at all. There was, if memory serves, a publication that contained a list of codewords, many of which seemed to have classical Greek and Roman origins.

Quite correct ERC. For OPSEC reasons, the name selected was to have no discernible meaning for the enemy.

Personnaly, I always wondered about the Army's choice of "Rendez-Vous XX" for its big land exercises. Why call them by a word that means "surrender!" in French ???

Anyhow, each nation has its own way for those operations that are not "within NATO". The French in the cold war era use to use precious stone, for instance: Op Diamant, Op Opale, Op Rubis, etc.

 

[George Wallace]

Personnaly, I always wondered about the Army's choice of "Rendez-Vous XX" for its big land exercises. Why call them by a word that means "surrender!" in French ???

???

What dictionary or translation service are you using?


You may want your money back.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Anglo/French lesson coming:

Surrender, in English, is the adoption of the French verb "rendre" when juxtaposed with French for yourself from the third person point of view: "se rendre".

Thus, in French when you intimate to someone that they should "rendre" themselves, you intimate to them the order: Rendez-vous.

That is why, if you look at my post, you will see that I put an exclamation mark at the end of my surrender in quotes.

 

[jollyjacktar]

That might explain why I would see LAVIII with white flags flying during my Maple Guardian workups for Roto 7.  >

 

[The Bread Guy]

Anglo/French lesson coming:

Surrender, in English, is the adoption of the French verb "rendre" when juxtaposed with French for yourself from the third person point of view: "se rendre".

Thus, in French when you intimate to someone that they should "rendre" themselves, you intimate to them the order: Rendez-vous.

That is why, if you look at my post, you will see that I put an exclamation mark at the end of my surrender in quotes.

Quite the explanation, considering most Francophones I know consider "rendezvous" 1)  one word, 2) a word meaning an agreed-to meeting or get-together (like, in these parts, The Great Rendezvous), 3) with no connection to surrender whatsoever.

Unless they figure "rendez vous" literally means "render yourself" (as in melting yourself like fat)

 

[cryco]

Actually, it can mean both, but 99.9% of the time used, its as one word and means an appointment. Un rendezvous au dentiste.
The surrender version of it, "allez, rendez vous, vous n'avez aucune autre option... ", does indeed mean, surrender yourself, but, like I said, is unheard of in everyday conversation.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Alright!

Je me rends.

I shall make no further subtle attempts at injecting levity unless I use /JOKEON and /JOKEOFF symbols.

YES: rendezvous (one word, noun) means appointment or meeting in French, and split in two to become a verb takes on a new meaning. I just thought it was funny for a military exercise to use a noun that could be misinterpreted as a verb to cover an ignominious military act: surrendering. Sorry if this did not go over well.

 

[cryco]

Personnaly, I always wondered about the Army's choice of "Rendez-Vous XX" for its big land exercises. Why call them by a word that can mean "surrender!" in French ???

Yea, we kinda missed that one. But the addition of one word may have made it clearer to us nitpickers.

 

[George Wallace]

Actually, it can mean both, but 99.9% of the time used, its as one word and means an appointment. Un rendezvous au dentiste.
The surrender version of it, "allez, rendez vous, vous n'avez aucune autre option... ", does indeed mean, surrender yourself, but, like I said, is unheard of in everyday conversation.

Ah!  OK.  One word and two words, that sound the same when spoken to my undiscerning tin ear, with completely different meanings.  J'ai remise à vous.

Kinda like when we get after people for their lack of capitals and punctuation:

"Go help your Uncle Jack off the horse." and "Go help your uncle jack off the horse."  Context is everything.  ;D

 

[CougarKing]

The USS Carl Vinson carrier strike group relieved the USS George H.W. Bush carrier group on station recently. The Vinson's planes are now the ones conducting the strikes in Iraq.

If you like graphics, here's who's contributing what ....

Source

 

[CougarKing]

And ISIS now has a port city? The other report mentioning how ISIS intended to join Al-Shabaab in maritime piracy comes to mind.

Associated Press

Libyan city becomes the first outside of Iraq, Syria to join Islamic State group's 'caliphate'
The Canadian Press

By Maggie Michael, The Associated Press

(...SNIPPED)

The takeover of the city, some 1,000 miles (1,600 kilometres) from the nearest territory controlled by the Islamic State group, offers a revealing look into how the radical group is able to exploit local conditions. A new Islamic State "emir" now leads the city, identified as Mohammed Abdullah, a little-known Yemeni militant sent from Syria known by his nom de guerre Abu al-Baraa el-Azdi, according to several local activists and a former militant from Darna.

A number of leading Islamic State militants came to the city from Iraq and Syria earlier this year and over a few months united most of Darna's multiple but long-divided extremist factions behind them. They paved the way by killing any rivals, including militants, according to local activists, former city council members and a former militant interviewed by The Associated Press. They all spoke on condition of anonymity out of fear for their lives.
Darna could be a model for the group to try to expand elsewhere. Notably, in Lebanon, army troops recently captured a number of militants believed to be planning to seize several villages in the north and proclaim them part of the "caliphate." Around the region, a few militant groups have pledged allegiance to its leader, Iraqi militant Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. But none hold cohesive territory like those in Darna do.

The vow of allegiance in Darna gives the Islamic State group a foothold in Libya, an oil-rich North African nation whose central government control has collapsed in the chaos since the 2011 ouster and death of longtime dictator Moammar Gadhafi.

Extremists made Darna their stronghold in the 1980s and 1990s during an insurgency against Gadhafi, the city protected by the rugged terrain of the surrounding Green Mountain range in eastern Libya. Darna was the main source of Libyan jihadis and suicide bombers for the insurgency in Iraq after the U.S.-led invasion. Entire brigades of Darna natives fight in Syria's civil war.

(...SNIPPED)

 

[a_majoor]

IS** is more like a cancer rather than an army or a state, and our institutions and forces are rather poorly prepared or equipped to deal with this sort of thing. If our current "strategy" was taken to the logical extreme, the Alliance will need thousands of aircraft carrying out bombing missions throughout the world to swat every "outbreak" of IS**, and we would still be seeing self radicalized people popping up right here at home, and new groups springing up or changing sides to join IS**.

Letting IS** fight it out with the Syrians and Iranians is a good short term solution, since it allows the West to conserve "our" resources while draining theirs, but the longer term solution continues to elude *us*.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Following along from Thucydides' cancer analogy, there are two ways to deal with cancer:

    1. When it infects you, you take action ~ chemical therapy, radiation and surgery. In military terms you attack the cancer with massive resources, all your resources, because
        there are only two possible outcomes: a) it wins and you die, or b) you win and it dies (sending your cancer into remission is not a desirable outcome because it is temporary); or

    2. When it infects someone else, you can either donate to help others fight their cancer, or, if it infects someone about whom you don't care, you can go about your merry way.

Now, I think I might understand some of the American strategy ~ the parts related to domestic US partisan politics. But I do not understand any other elements of America's strategy and I suspect there might not be anything beyond domestic, partisan politics at stake.

My sense of the issue is:

    1. We, the US led West, have one and only one real friend in the Middle East: Israel ... and it is a reluctant friend because it faces a real, existential threat and it doesn't give a damn about what
        we think, say and do except for how whatever we say and do impacts their security;

    2. One other country, Jordan, is trying, honestly and constructively to bring something like peace to the Middle East;

    3. All the rest of the Muslims, from Morocco to Indonesia are, at the very best, indifferent to our interests. They have their own and, save only Jordan, their interests and ours are incompatible;

    4. Thus: we have a situation where one bunch of people who hate us (Iraq and Syria and so on) are killing and being killed by another group of people who hate us (IS**). One must ask:
        "What's not to like?"

    5. Why in hell are we helping enemies to fight other enemies? A plague (biological and chemical warfare, anyone?) on both their houses, as my grandfather used to say about politicians.
         

 

[Ostrozac]

Good assessment, and I would add these points:

1. Turkey is an ally of the west. They often don't act like it, Europe often acts like they are an embarrassment, but they are a fully signed off member of NATO, and have to be considered in any Middle East strategy. They have a huge army, a large population, a growing economy, and they were, in the recent past, the dominant regional power. Should Turkey be westernizing and looking towards Europe? Or should they go back to their roots and look east for growth and influence? Does the Middle East start at Thrace?

2. Demographics is everything. It brings you taxpayers, troops, emigrants (who give back money and influence to the homeland), cities (the 21st century is going to be an urbanized century) and voters (should you choose to have elections). Israel simply lacks people. Egypt has 87 million people, Turkey has 76 million, Iran has 77 million, Israel has 8 million. Israel, no matter what else it is, is a small nation punching above it's weight, not a regional power. It is Switzerland or Norway, it is not Austria-Hungary.

3. The natural state of the Middle East is probably Iranian dominance (or a division of areas of influence between Iran, Turkey and Egypt) -- but the United States has a hard time articulating that it wants to help Iran dominate the Middle East, even as the actions of the United States say otherwise. Overthrowing Saddam Hussein, bombing ISIS rebels who are enemies of the pro-Iranian regimes in Iraq and Syria, even the tacit western support for the Arab Spring uprisings (which threatened the monarchies that most directly oppose Iran) -- intentionally or not, all of these actions are helping Iran move towards greater status as a regional power. That may be a good thing (unless you're in the House of Saud) -- it may be a natural thing -- some American action is even encouraging it -- but realize if you leave the Middle East to it's own devices you will probably wake up in 25 years with a new Persian Empire.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I like your points Ostrozac, but not, of course, without a quibble: I think that a large part of what we are seeing now, in Turkey, is a result of the EU's tacit rejection of Turkey a few years ago, circa 2005. My sense is that forced Turkey to look East and South, not North and West.

I agree, fully, with your assessments of Israel and the desirability, in my opinion, of a balance between three empires: Egypt's ~ mostly West of Israel and Jordan, Iran's, mostly East of of the Euphrates River, and Turkey's, between the first two, excepting Israel and Jordan, and stretching all the way down to the Gulf of Aden.