Mr. Laser Beam wrote:
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?
It's a deliberate misinterpretation which the US media will bandy about until everyone starts believing that Boston was attacked with a WMD. It implies that suicide bombers and car bombers (and all those bombings you hear about in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere) have been setting off not just explosives but 'WMDs'.
I mean when you think of a WMD, you think of deadly toxins, nerve gas, nuclear weapons and now... pressure cooker bombs? Just how far do extend the definition of a WMD? C4, Semtex, grenades or even guns? After all guns have killed just as many, if not more, people as explosives have. Where do you draw the line? Maybe the Second Amendment should read like this-
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear weapons of mass destruction shall not be infringed.
Anyway I'm side-tracking here, so my point is this. Terrorism is one incredibly sensitive and polarizing subject in the US, saying that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev detonated a WMD will only make things worse and will only give the US government more leverage to expand its anti-terror laws. Already the House of Representatives has passed CISPA (and after the Boston attack it was all everyone could talk about, so there was no chance for an online petition to form), and the Senate will soon vote upon it, so already US politicians are taking advantage of this terrorist attack.
The attack on the Boston Marathon was a terrible thing, but saying that a WMD went off is a misrepresentation of what happened. I'm saying let's stick to the facts here; two pressure cook bombs (IEDs) were detonated (while five more explosive devices were diffused) and saying that these IEDs were WMDs is misconstruing the truth.