View Single Post
Old April 22 2013, 10:11 PM   #223
Locutus of Bored
A Certain Point of View
 
Locutus of Bored's Avatar
 
Location: The Force
Re: Reports of explosions at 2013 Boston Marathon

Ln X wrote: View Post
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has been officially charged with using a WMD. I'm not questioning whether Dzhokhar here perpetrated the bombings, but a pressure cooker bomb is a WMD?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/137391129/...laint-Tsarnaev

In the link above there is the official criminal complaint, in the second page in point 3, it clearly says that Dzhokhar used a WMD against persons and property.

Now I've done some checking and a WMD is a weapon which belong to the CBRNE class (chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and explosives (high yield)). But does a home-made pressure cooker bomb count as a high yield explosive? We're not talking about weapons which produce dozens or hundreds of casualties, but thousands or tens of thousands of casualties or higher.

This is blatant fear-mongering and sensationalism to plant the idea that a WMD was used in the Boston terror attacks. Those were terrible attacks but since when have IEDS been considered WMDs?

There's something very rotten going on here...
It's certainly a sensationalist use of terminology, and I find calling it a WMD ridiculous, but there's no intent to fool anyone into thinking this was a nuclear/biological/chemical attack or that the bomb was more powerful than it was. The public is abundantly clear at this point on what kind of weapon was used and the scope of its damage thanks to the nonstop media coverage this past week.

However, you've now moved on from your previous baseless conspiracy theories about the brothers possibly being framed to trying to insinuate that a poor choice of words indicates some kind of grand scheme to fool the public or cover something up. Just give it up already. It's really coming off as foolish at this point.

Mr. Laser Beam wrote: View Post
Seems pretty clear to me. Bombs are a weapon. They are intended to cause mass destruction. Therefore they are a weapon of mass destruction. What part of this is unclear?
Because the meaning of the term weapons of mass destruction is well established as primarily concerning N/B/C weapons and not low yield IEDs. The fact that they caused a lot of damage and chaos doesn't change how the term has traditionally been used. When that elderly man plowed through the Santa Monica Farmer's Market in his car killing ten and injuring 63 they didn't start calling his car a weapon of mass destruction (though I'll grant it's not designed to be a weapon, unlike an IED, but that's still not how we've used the term WMDs).
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, king of kings: Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.
Locutus of Bored is offline   Reply With Quote