Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

spanone

(135,627 posts)
17. they were charged with using a weapon of mass destruction.
Sat Apr 27, 2013, 03:11 PM
Apr 2013
How Boston bombs qualify as ‘weapons of mass destruction


Iraq dictator Saddam Hussein didn't have weapons of mass destruction, but two young Boston bombers did?

No doubt many Americans were a bit perplexed Monday when 19-year-old Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was federally charged with "using a weapon of mass destruction," even if the explosions at the Boston Marathon did result in three deaths and injuries to more than 170 people.

In the late 1990s, President Clinton and other top officials, in discussing the fears about the Iraq dictator, repeatedly used the term to describe chemical, biological and even nuclear weapons that could kill vast numbers in the Middle East.

The term grew to even greater currency with the Bush adminstration in the months before and after the invasion of Iraq in 2003. President Bush used the term four times in his 2003 State of the Union speech, warning that Hussein had the capability to produce enough anthrax and botulinum toxin to kill millions.

http://articles.philly.com/2013-04-24/news/38766063_1_boston-marathon-mass-destruction-saddam-hussein
I think a pressure cooker d_r Apr 2013 #1
Well.. supernaut Apr 2013 #2
By that definition handguns are WMDs. nt hack89 Apr 2013 #3
I'm not sure I'd call a cooker bomb a WMD either kudzu22 Apr 2013 #4
I believe he was charged G_j Apr 2013 #6
I guess they have a different definition kudzu22 Apr 2013 #8
Using the logic employed by the OP Crepuscular Apr 2013 #5
Certainly, automobiles have killed more people than crock pots. AnotherMcIntosh Apr 2013 #11
US law says that is the case sarisataka Apr 2013 #7
any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury ...gun. spanone Apr 2013 #16
If you can't tell the difference between a gun and a bomb, for cryin' out loud, I can't help you. Bake Apr 2013 #18
So if one bomb blast = WMD, then Iraq had WMD. City Lights Apr 2013 #25
Frankly, I doubt the Boston bombs actually qualify as WMDs. Bake Apr 2013 #30
IMO, the Boston bombs shouldn't qualify, but Tsarnaev was charged with City Lights Apr 2013 #35
The definition of WMD is different from department to department. lob1 Apr 2013 #42
And pressure cooker. And cars. And planes. And lighters (catch a house on fire with one) The Straight Story Apr 2013 #22
Not according to 2332a sarisataka Apr 2013 #32
It's an absurd definition of the term. Joseph Ledger Apr 2013 #24
Yes MattBaggins Apr 2013 #26
All right then...what weapons do soldiers use that *aren't* WMDs? Joseph Ledger Apr 2013 #29
You will have to take that up with both the DoJ and DoD MattBaggins Apr 2013 #31
Agreed. Now we're dumbing down WMD. City Lights Apr 2013 #27
Under US law sarisataka Apr 2013 #33
I certainly agree that's how US law defines it. Joseph Ledger Apr 2013 #34
I agree sarisataka Apr 2013 #36
It's a definition giving big brother wide latitude to categorize any act by the un-cleansed indepat Apr 2013 #41
You have a question I can't answer. Life Long Dem Apr 2013 #9
you mean pressure cooker and no one has called pressure cookers wmds. NO ONE. cali Apr 2013 #10
they were charged with using a weapon of mass destruction. spanone Apr 2013 #17
yes, but is anyone calling pressure cookers wmd? fuck no. cali Apr 2013 #38
It was a pressure cooker bomb jmowreader Apr 2013 #12
Bill Maher said last night that if a pressure cooker bomb is considered WMD, City Lights Apr 2013 #13
i have wondered the same. 26 murdered in newtown ....was that not mass destruction? spanone Apr 2013 #14
At least one of them you can aim. (nt) The Straight Story Apr 2013 #15
Read the legislation and then start emoting. (nt) Posteritatis Apr 2013 #19
This message was self-deleted by its author Recursion Apr 2013 #20
It doesn't fit their meme...../nt think Apr 2013 #21
Because pressure cookers don't have the NRA, and millions of yahoos Hoyt Apr 2013 #23
I am so sick of our resident DU yahoos Skittles Apr 2013 #28
Please tell the admins. They need to hear this until it sinks in. Most Dems are not gun nuts. Electric Monk Apr 2013 #37
I'm the NBA and I vote! Deep13 Apr 2013 #40
Killing in succession is better than killing all at once? Deep13 Apr 2013 #39
Because Turbineguy Apr 2013 #43
good question. HiPointDem Apr 2013 #44
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»If a pressure cooker bomb...»Reply #17