Rename the WoT Forum already!

How is it that this forum is still entitled "War on Terrorism" when your beloved has instructed the Pentagon, the DoD, State Department, and Homeland Security to no longer use such a nomenclature, idiom, and/or phrase?

Get your acts together and try to keep up with the prevailing governmental attitudes and whims.

Rename the existing forum either "Overseas Contingency Operation" or "Man-made Disaster," kkthx. Get with the program here people.

I pray your being sarcastic, but you never really say you are.

Originally posted by Seekerof
... when your beloved has instructed...

Um. Who?

Great thread by the way.
No really.
Very deep.

I look forward to more from you.

As a Ph.D. candidate/student researching piracy and maritime terrorism, part of me was being somewhat facetious but deep down, having been a member of this community for a number of years and witnessing the creation and political/ideological reasoning behind the creation of this forum, among other forums, I was being dead dern serious.

reply to post by Seekerof

Originally posted by Seekerof
Get your acts together and try to keep up with the prevailing governmental attitudes and whims.

Well, then, we should also be certain to rename the Global Meltdown forum to the Economic Rip-off Stabilization forum.

I'm a stickler for consistency.



[edit on 3-4-2009 by loam]

reply to post by Seekerof


Then we have to call Terrorist .....

Constitutional Disapprovalist

We'll continue to call it what it is.

The current name defines the implications of using national military assets for what should be law enforcement responsibilities.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
The current name defines the implications of using national military assets for what should be law enforcement responsibilities.

Can you send a memo to the Obama Administration,; better yet, maybe send one to Napolitano at Homeland Security?

FYI: The sole use of law enforcement, whether on a national or international level, will not fully or effectively deter, interdict, and/or inhibit acts of terrorism, oppps, errr, man-made disasters, via terrorist/extremist/militant groups and/or organizations. Therefore, it should be self-evident that the use of national or international military assets is not only justified, but warranted, especially when terrorism is perceived as a national and international security threat.

At any rate, I would have figured that a forum name change would have been in order, especially being it would have allowed this board to hastily push the legacy of the much hated Bush Adminstration into the past. Appears I was wrong. But hey, your right in one respect, changing the name would and does not really change what it is, no matter how we or the international community wage it.



[edit on 4-4-2009 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by Seekerof
"Overseas Contingency Operation"

Pretty damn lame, isn't it?
How can you win a war when you dont' even acknowledge that it is a war?
Answer - you don't.

Gotta disagree with SO.
This isn't a police/law enforcement situation.
It's war. And unfortunately it won't ever end. Never - ever.

I thought skeptics reply was appropriate and succinct.

Since this thread seems to be doubling as an off-topic opine on politics and the role of the military, I'd like to add my 2 cents (was 100$ before inflation):

The militaries job is to kill the enemy. When they're not killing the enemy, they should be training to kill the enemy.

What is not the militaries job? Cleaning up New Orleans, policing the states, fighting domestic terrorism, acting as the worlds baby sitter, building houses in Iraq, feeding the children in Darfur, keeping your streets safe, cleaning up automobile accidents on the highway, etc.

Again, militaries job is to: Kill the enemy. Train to kill the enemy.

Originally posted by Kaytagg
The militaries job is to kill the enemy. When they're not killing the enemy, they should be training to kill the enemy.

Where you been? What you have just asserted is quite frankly, a stereotypical and broad-sweeping assumption. The current role of the military is not just to "kill the enemy;" times have changed, get with the program called the "age of terrorism." The military know has to read them their rights, etc. Furthermore, the real role of the military is to deter, interdict, inhibit, and prepare, and if all else fails, then to "kill the enemy."


[edit on 4-4-2009 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by Seekerof
The sole use of law enforcement, whether on a national or international level, will not fully or effectively deter, interdict, and/or inhibit acts of terrorism...

But "terrorism" is a criminal act, not an act of war. Agenda-inspired politicians are the ones who sought to convince the public it was something it's not. We here at ATS are supposed to be immune from those political factors.

I'm all for change, however if you really want to be accurate please consider the following modifications...

"Overseas Clean Up Operation" or "Bush-made Disaster,"

Given the long history of failure every time we "declare war" on a generic noun - War on Poverty, War on Drugs, etc. - I am perfectly happy dropping the "War on Terrorism" nomenclature. It seems to lend itself to a vague campaign that goes nowhere.

"Overseas contingency operations" at least has the benefit of being an accurate description.

But personally I'd be happy to call it "The War to Turn Al Quaeda & Pals into Meatpies" or whatever - just about anything but war against a generic noun

reply to post by Seekerof


The military is not a recognized authority of civil law enforcement. Using them as such also violates Posse Comitatus.

Our men in uniform are there to make war, despite how tempting it is to give them secondary and tertiary roles, because the defense budget is so bloated, and you want to use those vast resources somewhere...

If you don't like the military having only two jobs (kill the enemy. train to kill the enemy), you should support deceasing their budget, and allocating those funds to organizations with the specific mandate you're looking for -- IE, police the American streets, build houses in Iraq, read children's stories to orphans, or whatever service you're looking for. The military is simply not this kind of outfit.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
But "terrorism" is a criminal act, not an act of war.

hmmmmm... *think think think*

Okay ... my response -

When a person or group performs a single act of terrorism, then that's a police matter. But when a person or group performs many acts of terrorism ... coupled with armed training camps ... camps that teach war tactics ... coupled with public statements that it intends to bring a soverign nation down ... Then I have to say that those 'terrorist acts' are now acts of war.

During the Revolutionary War and the Civil War there were groups within the respective parties who pulled what would be called 'terrorist acts' ... but they were acts of war.

How is the war on terror any different? There are people who are training in camps to kill us. They are fighting for their ideology. They have stated they wish to destroy our country. They have declared war ... those are their words.

Sorry SO ... I can't see the War on Terror as something that is actually a police problem. Just because the terrorists don't have a country flag waving over their heads doesn't mean they aren't at war with us. Their actions fit the bill of war. IMHO.

reply to post by FlyersFan


So just to be clear, when a terrorist blows up a subway, that's not a crime? Since it's not a "criminal act," but an "act of war?"

We live in a nation at war on many fronts, the War on Terror is a minor one. Lets us not forget the War on Illiteracy and it's many tragic victims. Even our former President was a victim, as he was learning to read from a children's book about Goats, during the tragic 9/11 event, which eventually interrupted his lessons. Sadly he never learned how to say "Nuclear" because he simply could not read the memo.

The War on Poverty has taken a serious setback, and new victims are being added as we speak. Who will bail out those left in poverty by Wall Street greed and political enabling?

On another horrendous front, the War on Drugs has led to prison camps for a major amount of enemy combatants here within the US. It is a very costly battle that is being waged and you can see the combat bills piling up here: War on Drugs Clock

Perhaps the most tragic and devistating war being waged in the US, the one that strikes terror into the hearts of children across the country is the War on Christmas

IN the US, when there is any sort of issue, the best way to deal with it is WAR, all out WAR!!!! Remember, the TSA stands for Take Santa Away!!!!

Originally posted by Kaytagg
The military is not a recognized authority of civil law enforcement. Using them as such also violates Posse Comitatus.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
But "terrorism" is a criminal act, not an act of war. Agenda-inspired politicians are the ones who sought to convince the public it was something it's not.

No, "terrorism" is a tactic, and is used during acts of war, conflict, insurgencies, etc. Furthermore, "terrorism" is not an ordinary criminal act, especially when every act of terrorism is not a criminal act. Hamas is a political and militant organization, not a criminal organization. Al-Qaeda is a militant/insurgent (i.e.: Jihadist) organization, not a criminal organization. And so on. As such, they are defined/labeled by the tactics they utilize. Conversely, "agenda-inspired politicians," especially those with liberal leanings and/or that follow the liberalism paradigm, to include the United Nations, tend to perceive and categorize all acts of terrorism or "terrorism" as "a criminal act," thus seek(ing) to combat, deter, inhibit, interdict, and prosecute "terrorism" through strictly law enforcement ways and means.

In short, the problem here is that there is yet any internationally defined consensus on what constitutes "terrorism," thus making any clear delineation (i.e.: whether via international or national law) between 'criminal activities' (i.e.: "a criminal act") and "terrorism" problematic, especially in political (i.e.: national, regional, and international) circles/environments.

We here at ATS are supposed to be immune from those political factors.

Should or does this not include the administration of this board?

[edit on 5-4-2009 by Seekerof]