DOD DICTIONARY OF MILITARY TERMS
 

The Pentagon has reissued its Dictionary of Military and Associated
Terms, featuring 736 pages of definitions updated through March 23,
2004.

The Dictionary includes a limited amount of intelligence terminology,
but no military slang. "Snafu" or "fubar" or similar indispensable
words are not to be found.

See Joint Publication 1-02, Department of Defense Dictionary of
Military and Associated Terms (1.8 MB PDF file):

http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/dod/jp1_02.pdf

Also, while downloading the dictionary, you will be able to
automatically update for free your Adobe Reader to the current 6.02
version, or you can choose to update at a later time if you prefer.

Bob Margolis (via WUN)
=====================================

Steve
Holland, MI
Drake R7, R8 and R8B

http://www.iserv.net/~n8kdv/dxpage.htm

dxAce wrote:

The Pentagon has reissued its Dictionary of Military and Associated
Terms, featuring 736 pages of definitions updated through March 23,
2004.

The Dictionary includes a limited amount of intelligence terminology,
but no military slang.


Many in the US military indeed DO have a limited amount intelligence, so
it would seem appropriate that the terminology used is adapted to this
reality. Slang would just befuddle these would-be torturers. It was best
left out.



mike

dxAce wrote:

The Pentagon has reissued its Dictionary of Military and Associated
Terms, featuring 736 pages of definitions updated through March 23,
2004.

The Dictionary includes a limited amount of intelligence terminology,
but no military slang.


Many in the US military indeed DO have 'a limited amount intelligence', so
it would seem appropriate that the terminology used is adapted to this
reality. Slang would just befuddle these would-be torturers.
It was best left out.


mike

"m II" wrote, in my opinion, prejudicial generalizations,
intended, again in my opinion, to antagonize members of
this group. Since that qualifies him as a troll I have hereby
exercise my PLONK privileges.

Troll post included so that others can PLONK me if they see
it differently.

Many in the US military indeed DO have 'a limited amount intelligence', so
it would seem appropriate that the terminology used is adapted to this
reality. Slang would just befuddle these would-be torturers.
It was best left out.


mike

m II wrote:

dxAce wrote:

The Pentagon has reissued its Dictionary of Military and Associated
Terms, featuring 736 pages of definitions updated through March 23,
2004.

The Dictionary includes a limited amount of intelligence terminology,
but no military slang.

Many in the US military indeed DO have a limited amount intelligence, so
it would seem appropriate that the terminology used is adapted to this
reality. Slang would just befuddle these would-be torturers. It was best
left out.

Don't look now... but you forgot to put the word 'of' in your first
sentence.

I'm hoping that you are in no way connected with the Canadian Military.

The purpose of the original post was to be of some assistance to those who
monitor the military via the radio.

Steve
Holland, MI
Drake R7, R8 and R8B

http://www.iserv.net/~n8kdv/dxpage.htm

On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 12:34:17 -0400,dxAce wrote:



m II wrote:

dxAce wrote:

The Pentagon has reissued its Dictionary of Military and Associated
Terms, featuring 736 pages of definitions updated through March 23,
2004.

The Dictionary includes a limited amount of intelligence terminology,
but no military slang.

Many in the US military indeed DO have a limited amount intelligence, so
it would seem appropriate that the terminology used is adapted to this
reality. Slang would just befuddle these would-be torturers. It was best
left out.

Don't look now... but you forgot to put the word 'of' in your first
sentence.

Don't look now but you are too stupid for words.


I'm hoping that you are in no way connected with the Canadian Military.

The purpose of the original post was to be of some assistance to those who
monitor the military via the radio.

Steve
Holland, MI
Drake R7, R8 and R8B

http://www.iserv.net/~n8kdv/dxpage.htm

redrum wrote:

On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 12:34:17 -0400,dxAce wrote:



m II wrote:

dxAce wrote:

The Pentagon has reissued its Dictionary of Military and Associated
Terms, featuring 736 pages of definitions updated through March 23,
2004.

The Dictionary includes a limited amount of intelligence terminology,
but no military slang.

Many in the US military indeed DO have a limited amount intelligence, so
it would seem appropriate that the terminology used is adapted to this
reality. Slang would just befuddle these would-be torturers. It was best
left out.

Don't look now... but you forgot to put the word 'of' in your first
sentence.

Don't look now but you are too stupid for words.

Then how did you manage to string a few of them together, 'tard?




I'm hoping that you are in no way connected with the Canadian Military.

The purpose of the original post was to be of some assistance to those who
monitor the military via the radio.

Steve
Holland, MI
Drake R7, R8 and R8B

http://www.iserv.net/~n8kdv/dxpage.htm

dxAce wrote:

Don't look now... but you forgot to put the word 'of' in your first
sentence.

I'm hoping that you are in no way connected with the Canadian Military.


Thanks for the clarification. I wasn't sure if we HAD a military. Things
haven't been the same since certain corrupt interests managed to scrap
the Avro Arrow project.

Then there was the Bras D'Or hydrofoil fiasco. Then the refitting of the
Bonaventure.

On and On....



mike

"Sanjaya" wrote:

"m II" wrote:
Many in the US military indeed DO have
'a limited amount intelligence', so it would
seem appropriate that the terminology used
is adapted to this reality. Slang would just
befuddle these would-be torturers. It was
best left out.

"m II" wrote, in my opinion, prejudicial
generalizations, intended, again in my
opinion, to antagonize members of this
group. Since that qualifies him as a troll
I have hereby exercise my PLONK
privileges. (snip)


Actually, I thought his comments were pretty funny, especially the part
about intelligence. Of course, perhaps you have to be around the military
most of your life, and have worked in military intelligence, to really get
the humor of it. The "would-be torturers" part was a little over the top,
but, since it did happen, that impression is something the military will
have to deal with for some time.

Stewart

On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 14:00:31 -0400,dxAce wrote:



redrum wrote:

On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 12:34:17 -0400,dxAce wrote:



m II wrote:

dxAce wrote:

The Pentagon has reissued its Dictionary of Military and Associated
Terms, featuring 736 pages of definitions updated through March 23,
2004.

The Dictionary includes a limited amount of intelligence terminology,
but no military slang.

Many in the US military indeed DO have a limited amount intelligence, so
it would seem appropriate that the terminology used is adapted to this
reality. Slang would just befuddle these would-be torturers. It was best
left out.

Don't look now... but you forgot to put the word 'of' in your first
sentence.

Don't look now but you are too stupid for words.

Then how did you manage to string a few of them together, 'tard?

As you've proven with your answer, you can hardly form a sentence
yourself. Attempting to correct someone else when your own grasp of
the English language is severely limited reinforces my opinion that
you are too stupid for words. I repeat,

Don't look now but you are too stupid for words.






I'm hoping that you are in no way connected with the Canadian Military.

The purpose of the original post was to be of some assistance to those who
monitor the military via the radio.

Steve
Holland, MI
Drake R7, R8 and R8B

http://www.iserv.net/~n8kdv/dxpage.htm

"Dwight Stewart" wrote...
Actually, I thought his comments were pretty funny, especially the part
about intelligence. Of course, perhaps you have to be around the military
most of your life, and have worked in military intelligence, to really get
the humor of it. The "would-be torturers" part was a little over the top,
but, since it did happen, that impression is something the military will
have to deal with for some time.

Stewart


Hi Dwight.
The old joke about "military intelligence" being an oxymoron
is indeed funny. But I didn't feel any of the post was intended
in to be humorous. Yes, the torture and harsh tactics did happen,
but to categorize everyone in the military in that light is, at the
least, baiting this group. Maybe I missed the joke. I've been
known to do that.

redrum wrote:

On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 14:00:31 -0400,dxAce wrote:



redrum wrote:

On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 12:34:17 -0400,dxAce wrote:



m II wrote:

dxAce wrote:

The Pentagon has reissued its Dictionary of Military and Associated
Terms, featuring 736 pages of definitions updated through March 23,
2004.

The Dictionary includes a limited amount of intelligence terminology,
but no military slang.

Many in the US military indeed DO have a limited amount intelligence, so
it would seem appropriate that the terminology used is adapted to this
reality. Slang would just befuddle these would-be torturers. It was best
left out.

Don't look now... but you forgot to put the word 'of' in your first
sentence.

Don't look now but you are too stupid for words.

Then how did you manage to string a few of them together, 'tard?

As you've proven with your answer, you can hardly form a sentence
yourself.

But I did, didn't I, 'tard?

"Sanjaya" wrote:

"Dwight Stewart" wrote...
Actually, I thought his comments were
pretty funny, especially the part about
intelligence. Of course, perhaps you have
to be around the military most of your life,
and have worked in military intelligence, to
really get the humor of it. The "would-be
torturers" part was a little over the top,
but, since it did happen, that impression is
something the military will have to deal
with for some time.


Hi Dwight.
The old joke about "military intelligence" being
an oxymoron is indeed funny. But I didn't feel
any of the post was intended in to be humorous.
Yes, the torture and harsh tactics did happen,
but to categorize everyone in the military in that
light is, at the least, baiting this group. Maybe I
missed the joke. I've been known to do that.


Perhaps I give people more credit. Darn few, if any, are going to be
influenced by such a blanket statement, so I don't really see his comment as
something to get that excited about. Having said that, it is indeed an
impression that every single person in the military will have to deal with
until people finally forget. When seeing a soldier, some will always wonder
if that particular service member was involved. That may not be fair, but it
is the reality of situations like this. Since we can't change that reality,
I feel the best solution is to ignore it and move on to other things (like
the humor about "military intelligence").

Stewart

On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 06:57:42 -0400,dxAce wrote:



redrum wrote:

On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 14:00:31 -0400,dxAce wrote:



redrum wrote:

On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 12:34:17 -0400,dxAce wrote:



m II wrote:

dxAce wrote:

The Pentagon has reissued its Dictionary of Military and Associated
Terms, featuring 736 pages of definitions updated through March 23,
2004.

The Dictionary includes a limited amount of intelligence terminology,
but no military slang.

Many in the US military indeed DO have a limited amount intelligence, so
it would seem appropriate that the terminology used is adapted to this
reality. Slang would just befuddle these would-be torturers. It was best
left out.

Don't look now... but you forgot to put the word 'of' in your first
sentence.

Don't look now but you are too stupid for words.

Then how did you manage to string a few of them together, 'tard?

As you've proven with your answer, you can hardly form a sentence
yourself.

But I did, didn't I, 'tard?

Just because you start your string of words with a capital and end it
with a period or question mark does not mean it's a sentence, stupid.

As you've proven with your answer, you can hardly form a sentence
yourself. Attempting to correct someone else when your own grasp of
the English language is severely limited reinforces my opinion that
you are too stupid for words. I repeat,

Don't look now but you are too stupid for words.

redrum wrote:

On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 06:57:42 -0400,dxAce wrote:



redrum wrote:

On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 14:00:31 -0400,dxAce wrote:



redrum wrote:

On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 12:34:17 -0400,dxAce wrote:



m II wrote:

dxAce wrote:

The Pentagon has reissued its Dictionary of Military and Associated
Terms, featuring 736 pages of definitions updated through March 23,
2004.

The Dictionary includes a limited amount of intelligence terminology,
but no military slang.

Many in the US military indeed DO have a limited amount intelligence, so
it would seem appropriate that the terminology used is adapted to this
reality. Slang would just befuddle these would-be torturers. It was best
left out.

Don't look now... but you forgot to put the word 'of' in your first
sentence.

Don't look now but you are too stupid for words.

Then how did you manage to string a few of them together, 'tard?

As you've proven with your answer, you can hardly form a sentence
yourself.

But I did, didn't I, 'tard?

Just because you start your string of words with a capital and end it
with a period or question mark does not mean it's a sentence, stupid.

I guess you and I have a difference of opinion on what contitutes a sentence, 'tard!

Don't look now but you are too stupid for words.

On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 09:50:22 -0400,dxAce wrote:



redrum wrote:

On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 06:57:42 -0400,dxAce wrote:



redrum wrote:

On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 14:00:31 -0400,dxAce wrote:



redrum wrote:

On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 12:34:17 -0400,dxAce wrote:



m II wrote:

dxAce wrote:

The Pentagon has reissued its Dictionary of Military and Associated
Terms, featuring 736 pages of definitions updated through March 23,
2004.

The Dictionary includes a limited amount of intelligence terminology,
but no military slang.

Many in the US military indeed DO have a limited amount intelligence, so
it would seem appropriate that the terminology used is adapted to this
reality. Slang would just befuddle these would-be torturers. It was best
left out.

Don't look now... but you forgot to put the word 'of' in your first
sentence.

Don't look now but you are too stupid for words.

Then how did you manage to string a few of them together, 'tard?

As you've proven with your answer, you can hardly form a sentence
yourself.

But I did, didn't I, 'tard?

Just because you start your string of words with a capital and end it
with a period or question mark does not mean it's a sentence, stupid.

I guess you and I have a difference of opinion on what contitutes a sentence, 'tard!

There is no "opinion" on what constitutes a sentence, stupid. There
are rules that spell out how a sentence is formed not opinions,
stupid.

As you've proven with your answer, you can hardly form a sentence
yourself. Attempting to correct someone else when your own grasp of
the English language is severely limited reinforces my opinion that
you are too stupid for words. I repeat,

Don't look now but you are too stupid for words.

redrum wrote:

On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 09:50:22 -0400,dxAce wrote:



redrum wrote:

On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 06:57:42 -0400,dxAce wrote:



redrum wrote:

On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 14:00:31 -0400,dxAce wrote:



redrum wrote:

On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 12:34:17 -0400,dxAce wrote:



m II wrote:

dxAce wrote:

The Pentagon has reissued its Dictionary of Military and Associated
Terms, featuring 736 pages of definitions updated through March 23,
2004.

The Dictionary includes a limited amount of intelligence terminology,
but no military slang.

Many in the US military indeed DO have a limited amount intelligence, so
it would seem appropriate that the terminology used is adapted to this
reality. Slang would just befuddle these would-be torturers. It was best
left out.

Don't look now... but you forgot to put the word 'of' in your first
sentence.

Don't look now but you are too stupid for words.

Then how did you manage to string a few of them together, 'tard?

As you've proven with your answer, you can hardly form a sentence
yourself.

But I did, didn't I, 'tard?

Just because you start your string of words with a capital and end it
with a period or question mark does not mean it's a sentence, stupid.

I guess you and I have a difference of opinion on what contitutes a sentence, 'tard!

There is no "opinion" on what constitutes a sentence, stupid.

There must be, 'tard. Because you disagree with what my 'opinion' is.

There
are rules that spell out how a sentence is formed not opinions,
stupid.

OK, 'tard, tell me what rules I may have broken.



As you've proven with your answer, you can hardly form a sentence
yourself.

Perhaps, but form them I do, 'tard.

Attempting to correct someone else when your own grasp of
the English language is severely limited reinforces my opinion that
you are too stupid for words. I repeat,

Don't look now but you are too stupid for words.

You're pretty repetitive.

On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 12:03:40 -0400, dxAce wrote:

You're pretty repetitive.

Maybe he's a liar and fabricator.

On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 12:03:40 -0400,dxAce wrote:



redrum wrote:

On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 09:50:22 -0400,dxAce wrote:



redrum wrote:

On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 06:57:42 -0400,dxAce wrote:



redrum wrote:

On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 14:00:31 -0400,dxAce wrote:



redrum wrote:

On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 12:34:17 -0400,dxAce wrote:



m II wrote:

dxAce wrote:

The Pentagon has reissued its Dictionary of Military and Associated
Terms, featuring 736 pages of definitions updated through March 23,
2004.

The Dictionary includes a limited amount of intelligence terminology,
but no military slang.

Many in the US military indeed DO have a limited amount intelligence, so
it would seem appropriate that the terminology used is adapted to this
reality. Slang would just befuddle these would-be torturers. It was best
left out.

Don't look now... but you forgot to put the word 'of' in your first
sentence.

Don't look now but you are too stupid for words.

Then how did you manage to string a few of them together, 'tard?

As you've proven with your answer, you can hardly form a sentence
yourself.

But I did, didn't I, 'tard?

Just because you start your string of words with a capital and end it
with a period or question mark does not mean it's a sentence, stupid.

I guess you and I have a difference of opinion on what contitutes a sentence, 'tard!

There is no "opinion" on what constitutes a sentence, stupid.

There must be, 'tard. Because you disagree with what my 'opinion' is.

Where did I disagree with your opinion of what a sentence is, stupid?
You had no opinion of what a sentence is, stupid.
I told you what a sentence isn't, stupid.
That's when you said we have a difference of opinion, stupid.
Try to at least keep track of your stupidity, stupid.



There
are rules that spell out how a sentence is formed not opinions,
stupid.

OK, 'tard, tell me what rules I may have broken.

If you have to ask then you don't have a clue about sentence
structure, stupid.





As you've proven with your answer, you can hardly form a sentence
yourself.

Perhaps, but form them I do, 'tard.

Keep writing, you ooze ignorance of the English language and are too
stupid to realize it, stupid.


Attempting to correct someone else when your own grasp of
the English language is severely limited reinforces my opinion that
you are too stupid for words. I repeat,

Don't look now but you are too stupid for words.

You're pretty repetitive.

That's because I'm trying to impress upon you how stupid you are,
stupid.

Attempting to correct someone else when your own grasp of
the English language is severely limited reinforces my opinion that
you are too stupid for words. I repeat,

Don't look now but you are too stupid for words.