RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 140,895
Posts: 5,476,856
Members: 25,050
Currently online: 475
Newest member: aloraptor

TrekToday headlines

Klingon Bloodwine To Debut
By: T'Bonz on Nov 25

Trek Actors In War Of The Worlds Fundraiser
By: T'Bonz on Nov 25

Star Trek: The Next Generation Gag Reel Tease
By: T'Bonz on Nov 24

Shatner In Haven
By: T'Bonz on Nov 24

Retro Review: Covenant
By: Michelle on Nov 22

Two Official Starships Collection Previews
By: T'Bonz on Nov 21

Saldana: Women Issues In Hollywood
By: T'Bonz on Nov 21

Shatner Book Kickstarter
By: T'Bonz on Nov 20

Trek Original Series Slippers
By: T'Bonz on Nov 19

Hemsworth Is Sexiest Man Alive
By: T'Bonz on Nov 19


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Lounges & General Chat > Miscellaneous

Miscellaneous Discussion of non-Trek topics.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old April 22 2013, 10:35 PM   #226
Mr. Laser Beam
Fleet Admiral
 
Mr. Laser Beam's Avatar
 
Location: The visitor's bullpen
View Mr. Laser Beam's Twitter Profile
Re: Reports of explosions at 2013 Boston Marathon

Locutus of Bored wrote: View Post
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).
Okay, I got the basic thrust of that gist.
__________________
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shakes, the shakes become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
Mr. Laser Beam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 22 2013, 11:15 PM   #227
publiusr
Commodore
 
Re: Reports of explosions at 2013 Boston Marathon

Now this is going to seem strnage but bear with me. I seem to remember some mysterious booms reported late at night over the last year or so. Now most of these are mine bursts, trains coupling on rail-yards, etc.

Now I seem to remember how folks who study sprites and blue jets actually used a computer program that some ufologist concocted, so it shows how even the oddball element may be useful.

I can't help but think some booms across the country might be dry runs of similar two man cells. A plot to bomb trains in Canada was foiled recently, so I cannot help but wonder.

Infrasound arrays would tell the difference between IEDs train cars and mine bursts.

I did say IEDs right, a recent talk radio caller kept calling them IUDs.

Yeah, those are nasty--I took a Dalkon shield right to the face once when...oh never mind
publiusr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 22 2013, 11:18 PM   #228
gturner
Admiral
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: Reports of explosions at 2013 Boston Marathon

Ln X wrote: View Post
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?
I'll tell you where the line is.

A couple of years ago a University of Kentucky football player was arrested for detonating WMD in an apartment complex near me. The local news of course ran with the shocking story, the players name joining a pantheon with Ted Kaczynski and Timothy McVeigh. Thankfully the charges were fairly quickly dropped because the WMDs were cleverly constructed out of 2-Liter PET plastic screw-top casings (of the usual variety), Diet Coke, and Mentos.

On the bright side, the new definition completely vindicates our invasion of Iraq. Saddam had stockpiles of Diet Coke and we couldn't control Mento smuggling across his border with Jordan.
gturner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 22 2013, 11:33 PM   #229
Whoa Nellie
Fleet Captain
 
Whoa Nellie's Avatar
 
Re: Reports of explosions at 2013 Boston Marathon

Ln X wrote: View Post
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...
Sorry, no scary conspiracy here. We're not talking about a military definition. We're talking about a legal definition. It is simply the way the Federal law happens to be written.

http://swampland.time.com/2013/04/22...d=sl-main-lead

It turns out that federal law defines “weapon of mass destruction” in extremely broad terms. The relevant statutes define almost any significant explosive device as a WMD. That specifically includes bombs, grenades, mines, and small rockets and missiles. The pressure cooker bombs planted at the Boston marathon and the explosives hurled at police on Thursday night would almost certainly qualify.


Whoa Nellie
__________________
Recipient of the 2006 Alara Rogers ASC Award for Best Author Overall.
"I personally like to think Picard and Vash had a very active sex life. I can't believe Picard just read Shakespeare up there in his room all those years." Patrick Stewart.
Whoa Nellie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 22 2013, 11:40 PM   #230
Ln X
Fleet Captain
 
Ln X's Avatar
 
Location: The great gig in the sky
Re: Reports of explosions at 2013 Boston Marathon

Locutus of Bored wrote: View Post
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.
The WMD charge is not some sort of grand scheme as you might suggest or some kind of cover-up. It's not part of any conspiracy either.

As for the above mentioned conspiracy theories I'm guilty as charged, all I can say is that I consider both side's arguments (the governments and the conspiracy peoples) but when I find glaring inconsistencies in the government's version of events or hushing up of certain compromising facts, then I consider the government's version the conspiracy.

But not all people who believe in conspiracy theories, or alternative explanations about the workings of the worlds, are mad or are lonesome people glued to a computer screen with no life. A lot about how the economy, money itself and the government works is not commonly know or has been falsely taught. There's a lot of information out there (from extraterrestrial visitors, the power of the human mind, the optimal currency system, to evolution and more) and you have to cherry pick it and sort out the legitimate from the crazy, the illogical from the reasonable. Which is made all the more harder as you fight off ones cognitive bias in a search for the truth.

You can call me a crazy tin-foil wearing nutter, whatever you will I don't really mind you know, if you want to ban me fine. IDIC and all of that really does exist, and there is a logic and reason for nearly everyone of the woes and problems afflicting this planet, plus an answer out there already (multiple answers for humanities eventual evolution from this prison we've imposed upon ourselves). A fraction of the conspiracy theories out there give you a glimpse to that answer...
__________________
Star Trek: The Approaching Shadow...

Caption contest: DS9
Ln X is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 23 2013, 12:01 AM   #231
Locutus of Bored
Full Metal Bat'leth
 
Locutus of Bored's Avatar
 
Location: Huntington Beach, California
Re: Reports of explosions at 2013 Boston Marathon

Ln X wrote: View Post
The WMD charge is not some sort of grand scheme as you might suggest or some kind of cover-up. It's not part of any conspiracy either.
I "suggested" nothing. You said "there's something very rotten going on here" and suggested that calling it a WMD was an attempt at convincing people that these were more than IEDs and that they might have had chemical or biological warheads. You were the one implying some concerted effort to fool people by calling it a WMD.

As for the above mentioned conspiracy theories I'm guilty as charged, all I can say is that I consider both side's arguments (the governments and the conspiracy peoples) but when I find glaring inconsistencies in the government's version of events or hushing up of certain compromising facts, then I consider the government's version the conspiracy.
But that's the problem. You're not finding anything glaring. You're trying to connect the dots between a bunch of vaguely formed ideas and exaggerations without a shred of evidence, and then when each one gets shot down you simply move on to something new without skipping a beat.

You can call me a crazy tin-foil wearing nutter, whatever you will I don't really mind you know, if you want to ban me fine.
See, this is exactly what I'm talking about. I never called you a name. The worst I said was that your arguments were coming off as foolish. And then you make the completely out of nowhere leap of logic that you're in danger of being banned. WTF, man? We're just having a conversation. You're not going to get banned, for Christ's sake.
Locutus of Bored is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 23 2013, 02:22 PM   #232
137th Gebirg
Rear Admiral
 
137th Gebirg's Avatar
 
Location: Who is John Galt?
Re: Reports of explosions at 2013 Boston Marathon

Holder called it a WMD in the charge papers instead of an IED in an effort to exaggerate the severity of the crime and invoke certain emotional responses from the media and, ergo, the public. It invokes vile visions of NBC weaponry, as opposed to the simple but effective claymore that it really is. The intent is to ultimately lead to increasing the chances of conviction and resulting in a stiffer sentence. Lawyers do it all the time. It's called puffery, and Holder is the top lawyer of the country right now. I don't think there's any conspiracy going on here other than an over-indulgent use of a thesaurus.
__________________
Gebirgswick - Ind, Tra, Sec & Env.
137th Gebirg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 23 2013, 06:25 PM   #233
Foxhot
Fleet Captain
 
Foxhot's Avatar
 
Location: everywhere
Re: Reports of explosions at 2013 Boston Marathon

The results of the bombs definitely amount to mass injuries. Does ''mass destruction'' have to be on a more fatal level? (Since mass murder at least in terms of shootings is defined as four or more victims.)
Foxhot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 23 2013, 06:41 PM   #234
Locutus of Bored
Full Metal Bat'leth
 
Locutus of Bored's Avatar
 
Location: Huntington Beach, California
Re: Reports of explosions at 2013 Boston Marathon

foxhot wrote: View Post
The results of the bombs definitely amount to mass injuries. Does ''mass destruction'' have to be on a more fatal level? (Since mass murder at least in terms of shootings is defined as four or more victims.)
No one is disputing that the bombs caused a great deal of damage, injury, and death. It's just that when you use the term WMD it evokes a certain image based on its traditional usage, and that is of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons that have the potential for wide area destruction and casualties measures in the thousands or more, as opposed to low yield explosives with a relatively minor blast radius.

However, while it all sounds a bit sensationalistic, I don't believe there's any intent to fool anyone, and it wouldn't work for the vast majority of the public who knows what kind of bomb was used anyway thanks to all the media coverage. The only people who might be fooled are those relative few who confuse Chechnya with the Czech Republic.

Also, there's a longstanding legal definition of WMD that is being used in the charge here (and has been used before, such as after the Oklahoma City Bombing with Tim McVeigh) that is separate from the popular usage of the term WMD.
Locutus of Bored is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 23 2013, 07:38 PM   #235
bluedana
Moderator
 
bluedana's Avatar
 
Location: on the raggedy edge
Re: Reports of explosions at 2013 Boston Marathon

In a criminal charge, it really doesn't matter what the popular definition of WMD is, anymore that it matters what the normal usage of "relevant" or "hearsay" is in the context of a trial.

According to the statute, 18 USC 2332a includes a "destructive device," and using the definition cross-referenced in 18 USC 921 (the firearms statute), that means: "any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas -- (i) bomb, (ii) grenade, (iii) rocket having a propellant charge of more than 4 ounces, (iv) missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than 1/4 ounce, (v) mine, or (vi) device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses."

It does not include any device that is not designed or re-designed for use as a weapon.

So, any incendiary device -- including whatever kind of bomb you can make -- is a destructive device under section 921, and is considered a WMD if it has a capability of injuring, maiming, and/or killing a large number of people at detonation. It does not include a car (which isn't designed or re-designed to be a weapon, even if you use it to mow down 30 people), unless you pack it with explosives and detonate it, or a firearm (no matter how many rounds it carries), which is defined separately in the same statute.
__________________
Fall seven times. Stand up eight. -- Japanese proverb.
bluedana is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 23 2013, 08:17 PM   #236
Locutus of Bored
Full Metal Bat'leth
 
Locutus of Bored's Avatar
 
Location: Huntington Beach, California
Re: Reports of explosions at 2013 Boston Marathon

bluedana wrote: View Post
In a criminal charge, it really doesn't matter what the popular definition of WMD is, anymore that it matters what the normal usage of "relevant" or "hearsay" is in the context of a trial.
I'm aware of that:

Locutus of Bored wrote: View Post
Also, there's a longstanding legal definition of WMD that is being used in the charge here (and has been used before, such as after the Oklahoma City Bombing with Tim McVeigh) that is separate from the popular usage of the term WMD.
We were talking about the distinction between the legal charge and the popular meaning.
Locutus of Bored is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 23 2013, 08:59 PM   #237
bluedana
Moderator
 
bluedana's Avatar
 
Location: on the raggedy edge
Re: Reports of explosions at 2013 Boston Marathon

Locutus of Bored wrote: View Post
bluedana wrote: View Post
In a criminal charge, it really doesn't matter what the popular definition of WMD is, anymore that it matters what the normal usage of "relevant" or "hearsay" is in the context of a trial.
I'm aware of that:

Locutus of Bored wrote: View Post
Also, there's a longstanding legal definition of WMD that is being used in the charge here (and has been used before, such as after the Oklahoma City Bombing with Tim McVeigh) that is separate from the popular usage of the term WMD.
We were talking about the distinction between the legal charge and the popular meaning.
Yes, I get that. And I was responding as well to foxhot and 137th Gebirg regarding that fact.
__________________
Fall seven times. Stand up eight. -- Japanese proverb.
bluedana is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 23 2013, 10:34 PM   #238
RJDiogenes
Idealistic Cynic and Canon Champion
 
RJDiogenes's Avatar
 
Location: RJDiogenes of Boston
Re: Reports of explosions at 2013 Boston Marathon

He detonated two bombs in the middle of a crowd at the Boston Marathon, killing three people and maiming dozens, executed an MIT cop, ran over and killed his brother, wounded another cop, engaged in multiple shootouts with various law enforcement agencies and threw bombs at people. There's no need to exaggerate charges. Nobody's worried about getting a conviction.
__________________
Please stop by my Gallery and YouTube Page for a visit. And read Trunkards! And check out my Heroes essays.
RJDiogenes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 24 2013, 12:40 AM   #239
137th Gebirg
Rear Admiral
 
137th Gebirg's Avatar
 
Location: Who is John Galt?
Re: Reports of explosions at 2013 Boston Marathon

Right. But what does matter is the sentence following inevitable conviction. Now that they are going after the death penalty, they need to make sure the language they use is as extreme as possible to ensure the maximum penalty for the obvious crime
__________________
Gebirgswick - Ind, Tra, Sec & Env.
137th Gebirg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 24 2013, 01:40 AM   #240
gturner
Admiral
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: Reports of explosions at 2013 Boston Marathon

Well, I don't like it when we take one already loosely defined term from one sphere and write it even more sloppily into domestic law. WMD used to denote the type of weapons we tried to avoid using in conventional, violent warfare, to distinguish from the usual artillery, napalm, and 2000-lb bombs dropping like rain.

There are many definitions of "genocide", and some of them refer to the targeting killing of a distinct group of people. If we did something similar to our domestic WMD definition, the "distinct group of people" could refer to the two clerks at the Quicky-Mart and "genocide" would join WMD as a nearly useless, throwaway word when used in criminal charges.
gturner is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:23 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.