It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What belongs in the War on Terrorism forum?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 6 2006 @ 07:21 PM
link   
I just noticed recently that threads about the war in Iraq, and a potential war with Iran are going in the War on Terrorism forum. As well, there's other miscellaneous threads in there about things like supplying nuclear weapons to Israel. Then, I look in the Other Current Events forum and I see threads about Iran again, but also about China and Abhkaz.

Do we need a general war forum or some such? It's highly misleading to refer to the wars in Iraq and a potential one in Iran as the war on terrorism. I know some would like to make such a connection, but due to the fact that such a connection is highly controversial, is it really necessary for ATS to allow Middle Eastern conflicts be termed as a War on Terror, while others are simply Other Current Events?

The issues appear to be:1. Why is the only war forum a war on terror forum? 2. Why separate the war on terror from general war? 3. Leave it up to the ATSer to come to a judgement about the war really means.

Thoughts, opinions?




posted on May, 6 2006 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn
Do we need a general war forum or some such?


Yes



I know some would like to make such a connection, but due to the fact that such a connection is highly controversial, is it really necessary for ATS to allow Middle Eastern conflicts be termed as a War on Terror, while others are simply Other Current Events?


The connection has already been made Iran has ties to terrorists in fact they sponsor them.


As for the current events most of the time if you notice those posts come from new users that do not know everything yet. It is just a learning curve and nothing to get all bent out of shape over :shk:



posted on May, 6 2006 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by shotsThe connection has already been made Iran has ties to terrorists in fact they sponsor them.

Yet, those aren't the reasons that the West went to war with Iraq and potentially with Iran. Nor, is the US or other Western nations currently involved in combat with the terrorists that were/are being supported by them. Thus, the connection between a war in Iran/Iraq and war on terrorism is controversial, as these are not really the reasons that the war will take/has taken place.


As for the current events most of the time if you notice those posts come from new users that do not know everything yet. It is just a learning curve and nothing to get all bent out of shape over :shk:


Errm...no, they are not just new users. Plus, these conflicts could just as easily go into Other Current Events. That's the problem is that there is a lot of ambiguity about where these threads belong. And, I'm not getting "bent out of shape" lol. This is just a discussion since assigning certain wars to war on terrorism can carry political connotations with it.



posted on May, 6 2006 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn

Nor, is the US or other Western nations currently involved in combat with the terrorists that were/are being supported by them.


OK since you insist there are no ties' then please feel free to prove it. Oh wait you cannot do that since there is evidence that says there is a direct tie.



Iraq Weapons -- Made in Iran



posted on May, 6 2006 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by shotsOK since you insist there are no ties' then please feel free to prove it. Oh wait you cannot do that since there is evidence that says there is a direct tie.


Look, [edit: WE] are just taking this off-topic. You've given a link to a story linking the war in Iraq to Iranian-made weapons, so what? The point of this thread is to discuss why these wars are being separated from the rest of the wars in the world. For one type of war we post in one forum, but for another type we post in another?

Wouldn't better organization be to have a Terrorism forum and a War forum? That way as well, we avoid the political connotations and implication that ATS agrees with the US version of these wars. This is independent of whether the US is right or wrong in this assignation, but it allows members to make their own decisions without having a subliminal message that "This is a war on terror" everytime someone views a thread about Iran or Iraq or some other Middle Eastern nation.



posted on May, 6 2006 @ 08:36 PM
link   
FWIW, I don't have a problem with Iran threads being in WOT.
I consider the situation in Iran to be related to the WOT, which I think had developed into a generic phrase, much like the Cold War.
As long as the topic is about the instability in Iran and the Middle East, I think it could go in WOT...unless it fits better in OCE, PTS or Peak Oil.



posted on May, 6 2006 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
FWIW, I don't have a problem with Iran threads being in WOT.
I consider the situation in Iran to be related to the WOT, which I think had developed into a generic phrase, much like the Cold War.
As long as the topic is about the instability in Iran and the Middle East, I think it could go in WOT...unless it fits better in OCE, PTS or Peak Oil.


Considering war itself is such a large subject, is it really necessary to get so specific and separate such wars from the rest? We have general subjects like Science & Technology, but then war gets so specific. And that's another thing, as you said, "I consider...[it]...to be related." That's up to indiividual interpretation about what the war really means.

And if terrorism is just considered unconvential warfare, then naturally you would have two subjects, 1. Terrorism (Unconvential), 2. War (Conventional). By all means, the war with Iraq and potentially with Iran will be a conventional war correct?

So, I guess there are three issues: 1. Why is the only war forum a war on terror forum? 2. Why separate the war on terror from general war? 3. Leave it up to the ATSer to come to a judgement about the war really means.



posted on May, 6 2006 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn
Look, you are just taking this off-topic.


Say what? It was you that said the following not me.




Nor, is the US or other Western nations currently involved in combat with the terrorists that were/are being supported by them.






Wouldn't better organization be to have a Terrorism forum and a War forum?


Absolutely not. There are far too many splinter groups most of which are known to have ties with terrorism all over the world. I doubt you realize the logistical nightmare it would be for ATS to have a separate forum for each and every little attack in various parts of the world do you?



posted on May, 6 2006 @ 08:57 PM
link   
Let's not get into this whole who said what first game, OK? We could argue about it, but I didn't want to debate any subject matter in this thread. PM me if you want to discuss that aspect further.


Originally posted by shots


Wouldn't better organization be to have a Terrorism forum and a War forum?

Absolutely not. There are far too many splinter groups most of which are known to have ties with terrorism all over the world. I doubt you realize the logistical nightmare it would be for ATS to have a separate forum for each and every little attack in various parts of the world do you?


I don't understand your point, I'm only talking about 2 forums, one for terrorism, one for war.



posted on May, 6 2006 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn
I don't understand your point, I'm only talking about 2 forums, one for terrorism, one for war.


Whats the difference one, two, six or ten they all would require a special unneeded folder. Why split it into separate folders when one has worked well for the past 3 plus years?

Now before I bow out of this nonsense more proof why Iran and WOT are tied together meaning they should be in the very same folder.


Does Iran sponsor terrorism?

Yes. The U.S. State Department has called Iran the world’s “most active state sponsor of terrorism.” Iran continues to provide funding, weapons, training, and sanctuary to numerous terrorist groups based in the Middle East and elsewhere. In March 2006, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said, “Iran has been the country that has been in many ways a kind of central banker for terrorism in important regions like Lebanon through Hezbollah in the Middle East, in the Palestinian Territories, and we have deep concerns about what Iran is doing in the south of Iraq.”









posted on May, 6 2006 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by shotsWhats the difference one, two, six or ten they all would require a special unneeded folder. Why split it into separate folders when one has worked well for the past 3 plus years?

There's a fundamental difference between conventional warfare, and terror, which has come to be the name for forms of unconventional warfare. Even the name war on terror shows this duality, so why not split such a duality into its two parts? Surely you are not suggesting that they are synonymous with each other.


Now before I bow out of this nonsense more proof why Iran and WOT are tied together meaning they should be in the very same folder.

Yet, that doesn't have to do with the point of this thread and you are simply taking trying to deflect the issue for whatever reason. I realize I brought some of this subject matter up earlier, but that was not the issue I wanted to address. The issues at hand are:
1. Why is the only war forum a war on terror forum? 2. Why separate the war on terror from general war? 3. Leave it up to the ATSer to come to a judgement about the war really means.



posted on May, 7 2006 @ 03:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by shots

Originally posted by Jamuhn
I don't understand your point, I'm only talking about 2 forums, one for terrorism, one for war.


Whats the difference one, two, six or ten they all would require a special unneeded folder. Why split it into separate folders when one has worked well for the past 3 plus years?

Now before I bow out of this nonsense more proof why Iran and WOT are tied together meaning they should be in the very same folder.


Does Iran sponsor terrorism?

Yes. The U.S. State Department has called Iran the world’s “most active state sponsor of terrorism.” Iran continues to provide funding, weapons, training, and sanctuary to numerous terrorist groups based in the Middle East and elsewhere. In March 2006, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said, “Iran has been the country that has been in many ways a kind of central banker for terrorism in important regions like Lebanon through Hezbollah in the Middle East, in the Palestinian Territories, and we have deep concerns about what Iran is doing in the south of Iraq.”





So because Condi says so, it must be true. THAT's exactly what's wrong with US citizens. They believe everything their government says, no matter how many lies have been proven.

The war on terror is a bogus concept: but it plays better than a war for oil.



posted on May, 7 2006 @ 05:17 AM
link   
The "War on Terrorism", in its current organized and overt incarnation, is an ideology spawned and characterized solely by the Bush administration. Without the Bush administration, the War on Terrorism, and hence, the WoT forum, simply would not exist. And so, ultimately, it is not ATS members or staff who determine what is and what isn't suitable for that forum, it is the Bush administration. If tomorrow, Condoleeza Rice declares that Jamaica is a supporter of terrorism, then any threads related to Jamaica should thereafter be posted in the WoT forum. Until then, they'll simply have to stay in BTS Travel.

Members should be aware, however, that President George Bush just recently declared the War on Terror to in fact be World War III, hence the name of the War on Terror forum will most likely soon change to congrue with that development.



posted on May, 7 2006 @ 05:30 AM
link   
I think Jamuhn has a point here.

We could rename the WoT forum, call it "Current Wars" or "World of War" or something like that.



posted on May, 7 2006 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
FWIW, I don't have a problem with Iran threads being in WOT.
I consider the situation in Iran to be related to the WOT, which I think had developed into a generic phrase, much like the Cold War.
As long as the topic is about the instability in Iran and the Middle East, I think it could go in WOT...unless it fits better in OCE, PTS or Peak Oil.


you said:

Considering war itself is such a large subject, is it really necessary to get so specific and separate such wars from the rest? We have general subjects like Science & Technology, but then war gets so specific. And that's another thing, as you said, "I consider...[it]...to be related." That's up to indiividual interpretation about what the war really means.

And if terrorism is just considered unconvential warfare, then naturally you would have two subjects, 1. Terrorism (Unconvential), 2. War (Conventional). By all means, the war with Iraq and potentially with Iran will be a conventional war correct?

So, I guess there are three issues: 1. Why is the only war forum a war on terror forum? 2. Why separate the war on terror from general war? 3. Leave it up to the ATSer to come to a judgement about the war really means.


I can not see how anyone can equate the Iraq war as conventional. The very first beheading video sort of categorized it UNconventional..IMO of course

And did not Iran say that they had 40K misguided individuals ready to perform homicide bombings?(in the name of peace???)(can not figure that one out)

SO Homicide bombings, beheadings, acts of cowardice all and very very unconventional..



posted on May, 7 2006 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by And so, ultimately, it is not ATS members or staff who determine what is and what isn't suitable for that forum, it is the Bush administration.

Good point! I realize after 9/11 that emotions were ripe to integrate this forum into ATS, but I think it's about time to move on and start using broader categories. As you implied as well, such a move would give some "self-determination" back to ATS.


Originally posted by paperclip
We could rename the WoT forum, call it "Current Wars" or "World of War" or something like that.

That sounds good, and it would be more all-encompassing and less politically charged than it currently is.


Originally posted by semperfortis
I can not see how anyone can equate the Iraq war as conventional. The very first beheading video sort of categorized it UNconventional..IMO of course

Of course there would be unconvential warfare in an invaded country where the people were seriously overpowered in terms of weapons and technology. But, that's not really what I want to get into, but rather these three points: 1. Why is the only war forum a war on terror forum? 2. Why separate the war on terror from general war? 3. Leave it up to the ATSer to come to a judgement about the war really means.

[edit on 7-5-2006 by Jamuhn]



posted on May, 7 2006 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by paperclip
I think Jamuhn has a point here.

We could rename the WoT forum, call it "Current Wars" or "World of War" or something like that.


really dont care what the folders on discussions on iraq/iran are called but if i were to be picky then id agree with papers suggestion...

theres always 2 or more facets to war...if you back the western front then its wot but if you back iraq/irans cause then itd probably be woi (infidels) lol...

anyway...its not a biggie for me




top topics



 
0

log in

join