Total Posts:103|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Tsarnaev to be charged with using a WMD

lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 12:49:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I just heard on CNN that the Boston Bombing suspect is going to be officially charged with using a weapon of mass destruction.

Is it just me or does WMD not have any real meaning anymore? I used to understand WMD's as being nukes, then nukes and chemical and biological weapons, but now they are going to legally claim that pressure cooker bomb is a WMD?
Anyone else find that ridiculous? WMD apparently doesn't hold much legal weight at all.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
1Percenter
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 1:39:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/22/2013 12:49:42 PM, lewis20 wrote:
I just heard on CNN that the Boston Bombing suspect is going to be officially charged with using a weapon of mass destruction.

Is it just me or does WMD not have any real meaning anymore? I used to understand WMD's as being nukes, then nukes and chemical and biological weapons, but now they are going to legally claim that pressure cooker bomb is a WMD?
Anyone else find that ridiculous? WMD apparently doesn't hold much legal weight at all.
WMDs have always had a very broad legal definition. They include almost any explosive device. Timoyhy McVeigh was found guilty of using weapons of mass destruction, and since it is a capital offense, he was vulnerable to the death sentence. I don't find this to be ridiculous, mainly because Tsarnaev should be punished to the full extent of the law as well.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 1:53:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/22/2013 1:39:58 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
At 4/22/2013 12:49:42 PM, lewis20 wrote:
I just heard on CNN that the Boston Bombing suspect is going to be officially charged with using a weapon of mass destruction.

Is it just me or does WMD not have any real meaning anymore? I used to understand WMD's as being nukes, then nukes and chemical and biological weapons, but now they are going to legally claim that pressure cooker bomb is a WMD?
Anyone else find that ridiculous? WMD apparently doesn't hold much legal weight at all.
WMDs have always had a very broad legal definition. They include almost any explosive device. Timoyhy McVeigh was found guilty of using weapons of mass destruction, and since it is a capital offense, he was vulnerable to the death sentence. I don't find this to be ridiculous, mainly because Tsarnaev should be punished to the full extent of the law as well.

I'm sure you'd just as soon have him lynched. What difference do legal definitions mean when someones so obviously guilty, kill him however you can get away with it, right?
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 2:58:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I propose a new definition for WMD to prevent such BS abuses of the term:
1. Any explosive device, whether chemical or nuclear, with a yield of over 1 kT TNT
2. Any biological pathogen, intended to be dispersed over a large area.
3. Any weapon capable of producing lethal levels of ionizing radiation over a large area (at least one square mile)
4. Any chemical weapon intended to disperse (in lethal levels) over a large area.

Does anyone see any holes in this definition?
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 2:59:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/22/2013 2:58:15 PM, drhead wrote:
I propose a new definition for WMD to prevent such BS abuses of the term:
1. Any explosive device, whether chemical or nuclear, with a yield of over 1 kT TNT
2. Any biological pathogen, intended to be dispersed over a large area.
3. Any weapon capable of producing lethal levels of ionizing radiation over a large area (at least one square mile)
4. Any chemical weapon intended to disperse (in lethal levels) over a large area.

Does anyone see any holes in this definition?

The whole intended part.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 3:00:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/22/2013 1:53:45 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 4/22/2013 1:39:58 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
At 4/22/2013 12:49:42 PM, lewis20 wrote:
I just heard on CNN that the Boston Bombing suspect is going to be officially charged with using a weapon of mass destruction.

Is it just me or does WMD not have any real meaning anymore? I used to understand WMD's as being nukes, then nukes and chemical and biological weapons, but now they are going to legally claim that pressure cooker bomb is a WMD?
Anyone else find that ridiculous? WMD apparently doesn't hold much legal weight at all.
WMDs have always had a very broad legal definition. They include almost any explosive device. Timoyhy McVeigh was found guilty of using weapons of mass destruction, and since it is a capital offense, he was vulnerable to the death sentence. I don't find this to be ridiculous, mainly because Tsarnaev should be punished to the full extent of the law as well.

I'm sure you'd just as soon have him lynched. What difference do legal definitions mean when someones so obviously guilty, kill him however you can get away with it, right?

Well, if what he used is considered a WMD, why should we not?
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 3:03:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/22/2013 2:59:42 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 4/22/2013 2:58:15 PM, drhead wrote:
I propose a new definition for WMD to prevent such BS abuses of the term:
1. Any explosive device, whether chemical or nuclear, with a yield of over 1 kT TNT
2. Any biological pathogen, intended to be dispersed over a large area.
3. Any weapon capable of producing lethal levels of ionizing radiation over a large area (at least one square mile)
4. Any chemical weapon intended to disperse (in lethal levels) over a large area.

Does anyone see any holes in this definition?

The whole intended part.

I don't think it's intended as in intent of the person but intended as in a device capable of doing that. Like barrels of agent orange meant to be placed in planes and dispersed
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 3:12:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/22/2013 3:03:41 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 4/22/2013 2:59:42 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 4/22/2013 2:58:15 PM, drhead wrote:
I propose a new definition for WMD to prevent such BS abuses of the term:
1. Any explosive device, whether chemical or nuclear, with a yield of over 1 kT TNT
2. Any biological pathogen, intended to be dispersed over a large area.
3. Any weapon capable of producing lethal levels of ionizing radiation over a large area (at least one square mile)
4. Any chemical weapon intended to disperse (in lethal levels) over a large area.

Does anyone see any holes in this definition?

The whole intended part.

I don't think it's intended as in intent of the person but intended as in a device capable of doing that. Like barrels of agent orange meant to be placed in planes and dispersed

Yeah. If it is obvious that you can look at the device and say 'this thing was designed to kill people', it should be classified as a WMD. If we just defined it as anything capable of killing things, then there are a lot of industrial chemicals that would be outright banned. I think you could even call the Large Hadron Collider a WMD under that definition.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 3:31:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/22/2013 12:49:42 PM, lewis20 wrote:
I just heard on CNN that the Boston Bombing suspect is going to be officially charged with using a weapon of mass destruction.

Is it just me or does WMD not have any real meaning anymore? I used to understand WMD's as being nukes, then nukes and chemical and biological weapons, but now they are going to legally claim that pressure cooker bomb is a WMD?
Anyone else find that ridiculous? WMD apparently doesn't hold much legal weight at all.

My guess is the reason for the charge is that it carried the maximum penalty available to the prosecutor.
Tsar of DDO
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 3:42:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/22/2013 3:31:52 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/22/2013 12:49:42 PM, lewis20 wrote:
I just heard on CNN that the Boston Bombing suspect is going to be officially charged with using a weapon of mass destruction.

Is it just me or does WMD not have any real meaning anymore? I used to understand WMD's as being nukes, then nukes and chemical and biological weapons, but now they are going to legally claim that pressure cooker bomb is a WMD?
Anyone else find that ridiculous? WMD apparently doesn't hold much legal weight at all.

My guess is the reason for the charge is that it carried the maximum penalty available to the prosecutor.

Right, I'm saying the charge should be off limits, that the term WMD should carry some weight. That pressure cooker bombs aren't WMD's so that charge should be off limits.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 3:45:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/22/2013 3:42:43 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 4/22/2013 3:31:52 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/22/2013 12:49:42 PM, lewis20 wrote:
I just heard on CNN that the Boston Bombing suspect is going to be officially charged with using a weapon of mass destruction.

Is it just me or does WMD not have any real meaning anymore? I used to understand WMD's as being nukes, then nukes and chemical and biological weapons, but now they are going to legally claim that pressure cooker bomb is a WMD?
Anyone else find that ridiculous? WMD apparently doesn't hold much legal weight at all.

My guess is the reason for the charge is that it carried the maximum penalty available to the prosecutor.

Right, I'm saying the charge should be off limits, that the term WMD should carry some weight. That pressure cooker bombs aren't WMD's so that charge should be off limits.

Is it your claim that an explosive device -loaded with black power and ball bearings- which killed 3, maimed dozens and injured more than 170 is NOT a weapon of mass destruction? (not to mention the economic, social and emotional costs to the witnesses, to the city of Boston and the United States as a whole) Because if so, your conception of what constitutes "mass destruction" might merit reevaluation.
Tsar of DDO
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 3:50:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/22/2013 3:45:49 PM, YYW wrote:
Is it your claim that an explosive device -loaded with black power and ball bearings- which killed 3, maimed dozens and injured more than 170 is NOT a weapon of mass destruction? (not to mention the economic, social and emotional costs to the witnesses, to the city of Boston and the United States as a whole) Because if so, your conception of what constitutes "mass destruction" might merit reevaluation.

Then by that definition every piece of ordinance in the US army is a WMD, every country on earth is in possession of WMD's, every mass shooting the gun used is a WMD.
No 'mass' means more than 3 killed, I know I'm a heartless bastard for saying it, but Mass Destruction is a nuclear device, a chemical or biological weapon capable of producing mass death and destruction. Not 3 dead and dozens maimed.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 3:52:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/22/2013 3:50:00 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 4/22/2013 3:45:49 PM, YYW wrote:
Is it your claim that an explosive device -loaded with black power and ball bearings- which killed 3, maimed dozens and injured more than 170 is NOT a weapon of mass destruction? (not to mention the economic, social and emotional costs to the witnesses, to the city of Boston and the United States as a whole) Because if so, your conception of what constitutes "mass destruction" might merit reevaluation.

Then by that definition every piece of ordinance in the US army is a WMD, every country on earth is in possession of WMD's, every mass shooting the gun used is a WMD.

Yes, indeed. That's precisely the point.

No 'mass' means more than 3 killed, I know I'm a heartless bastard for saying it, but Mass Destruction is a nuclear device, a chemical or biological weapon capable of producing mass death and destruction. Not 3 dead and dozens maimed.

In a legal sense, no such restriction is imposed under US law.
Tsar of DDO
RyuuKyuzo
Posts: 3,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 3:59:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The guy killed people with a make-shift bomb. That should be enough to give him the death sentence already, so I don't see why his crime needs to be kicked up a notch like this. What difference will it make? Are you going to kill him harder?
If you're reading this, you're awesome and you should feel awesome.
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 4:04:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/22/2013 3:59:11 PM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:
The guy killed people with a make-shift bomb. That should be enough to give him the death sentence already, so I don't see why his crime needs to be kicked up a notch like this. What difference will it make? Are you going to kill him harder?

I'd actually be surprised if he receives the death penalty. The charge is not "kicked up a notch," it is sufficient to account for the crime he committed.
Tsar of DDO
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 4:10:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/22/2013 3:52:02 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/22/2013 3:50:00 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 4/22/2013 3:45:49 PM, YYW wrote:
Is it your claim that an explosive device -loaded with black power and ball bearings- which killed 3, maimed dozens and injured more than 170 is NOT a weapon of mass destruction? (not to mention the economic, social and emotional costs to the witnesses, to the city of Boston and the United States as a whole) Because if so, your conception of what constitutes "mass destruction" might merit reevaluation.

Then by that definition every piece of ordinance in the US army is a WMD, every country on earth is in possession of WMD's, every mass shooting the gun used is a WMD.

Yes, indeed. That's precisely the point.

So there were and still are WMD's in Iraq? Both sides of the Syrian civil war are in possession of WMDs? We supplied WMD's to the Taliban in the 80s?

You're saying the point is that the term WMD means nothing? That the rifle and gunpowder in my gun case is a WMD?
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 4:11:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/22/2013 4:04:15 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/22/2013 3:59:11 PM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:
The guy killed people with a make-shift bomb. That should be enough to give him the death sentence already, so I don't see why his crime needs to be kicked up a notch like this. What difference will it make? Are you going to kill him harder?

I'd actually be surprised if he receives the death penalty. The charge is not "kicked up a notch," it is sufficient to account for the crime he committed.

Killing people, maiming people, killing police, armed assault of police, evading arrest etc. I'm sure there are a bunch other charges I can't think of off the top of my head, aren't enough?
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 4:15:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/22/2013 4:10:20 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 4/22/2013 3:52:02 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/22/2013 3:50:00 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 4/22/2013 3:45:49 PM, YYW wrote:
Is it your claim that an explosive device -loaded with black power and ball bearings- which killed 3, maimed dozens and injured more than 170 is NOT a weapon of mass destruction? (not to mention the economic, social and emotional costs to the witnesses, to the city of Boston and the United States as a whole) Because if so, your conception of what constitutes "mass destruction" might merit reevaluation.

Then by that definition every piece of ordinance in the US army is a WMD, every country on earth is in possession of WMD's, every mass shooting the gun used is a WMD.

Yes, indeed. That's precisely the point.

So there were and still are WMD's in Iraq? Both sides of the Syrian civil war are in possession of WMDs? We supplied WMD's to the Taliban in the 80s?

Way beyond the scope of this topic, but H. W. Bush gave Hussien VX nerve gas -which he then used to wage genocide against the Kurds. The United States did not intend for that to happen, or think that Saddam used it all. Hussien was also claiming to develop nuclear weapons (presumably to deter a US invasion), even though we now know he lied.

You're saying the point is that the term WMD means nothing? That the rifle and gunpowder in my gun case is a WMD?

That's not what I'm saying at all. lol
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 4:17:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/22/2013 4:11:46 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 4/22/2013 4:04:15 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/22/2013 3:59:11 PM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:
The guy killed people with a make-shift bomb. That should be enough to give him the death sentence already, so I don't see why his crime needs to be kicked up a notch like this. What difference will it make? Are you going to kill him harder?

I'd actually be surprised if he receives the death penalty. The charge is not "kicked up a notch," it is sufficient to account for the crime he committed.

Killing people, maiming people, killing police, armed assault of police, evading arrest etc. I'm sure there are a bunch other charges I can't think of off the top of my head, aren't enough?

I didn't say that his crimes were not sufficient to merit the death penalty, but only that I WOULD BE SURPRISED if he actually received it.

Come on, Lewis. Read.
Tsar of DDO
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 4:23:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/22/2013 4:15:53 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/22/2013 4:10:20 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 4/22/2013 3:52:02 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/22/2013 3:50:00 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 4/22/2013 3:45:49 PM, YYW wrote:
Is it your claim that an explosive device -loaded with black power and ball bearings- which killed 3, maimed dozens and injured more than 170 is NOT a weapon of mass destruction? (not to mention the economic, social and emotional costs to the witnesses, to the city of Boston and the United States as a whole) Because if so, your conception of what constitutes "mass destruction" might merit reevaluation.

Then by that definition every piece of ordinance in the US army is a WMD, every country on earth is in possession of WMD's, every mass shooting the gun used is a WMD.

Yes, indeed. That's precisely the point.

So there were and still are WMD's in Iraq? Both sides of the Syrian civil war are in possession of WMDs? We supplied WMD's to the Taliban in the 80s?

Way beyond the scope of this topic, but H. W. Bush gave Hussien VX nerve gas -which he then used to wage genocide against the Kurds. The United States did not intend for that to happen, or think that Saddam used it all. Hussien was also claiming to develop nuclear weapons (presumably to deter a US invasion), even though we now know he lied.

Ya, we gave Iraq the technology to create chemical weapons to use on Iran, those chemical weapons much more closely fit the bill of WMD, but you're saying gunpowder surrounded by shrapnel and a triggering mechanism is a WMD, Iraq has lots of those.

In the original resolution to invade Iraq, the term 'weapons of mass destruction' was used, either it didn't carry any legal weight or it did. If it didn't we were all duped by Washington double speak, if it did, these home made pipe bombs don't fit the bill.

You're saying the point is that the term WMD means nothing? That the rifle and gunpowder in my gun case is a WMD?

That's not what I'm saying at all. lol

It's not? It's capable of killing and maiming dozens, isn't that your definition of a WMD?
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 4:24:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/22/2013 4:17:01 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/22/2013 4:11:46 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 4/22/2013 4:04:15 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/22/2013 3:59:11 PM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:
The guy killed people with a make-shift bomb. That should be enough to give him the death sentence already, so I don't see why his crime needs to be kicked up a notch like this. What difference will it make? Are you going to kill him harder?

I'd actually be surprised if he receives the death penalty. The charge is not "kicked up a notch," it is sufficient to account for the crime he committed.

Killing people, maiming people, killing police, armed assault of police, evading arrest etc. I'm sure there are a bunch other charges I can't think of off the top of my head, aren't enough?

I didn't say that his crimes were not sufficient to merit the death penalty, but only that I WOULD BE SURPRISED if he actually received it.

Come on, Lewis. Read.

You implied that the charges, without adding the charge of WMD, weren't sufficient enough.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 4:27:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/22/2013 12:49:42 PM, lewis20 wrote:
I just heard on CNN that the Boston Bombing suspect is going to be officially charged with using a weapon of mass destruction.

Is it just me or does WMD not have any real meaning anymore? I used to understand WMD's as being nukes, then nukes and chemical and biological weapons, but now they are going to legally claim that pressure cooker bomb is a WMD?
Anyone else find that ridiculous? WMD apparently doesn't hold much legal weight at all.

What a strange thing to complain about.. Tsarnaev- you guys pals? Ya may as well be. Idiot.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 4:27:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The only question I have is how they couldn't find WMD's in Iraq.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 4:30:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/22/2013 4:23:25 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 4/22/2013 4:15:53 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/22/2013 4:10:20 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 4/22/2013 3:52:02 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/22/2013 3:50:00 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 4/22/2013 3:45:49 PM, YYW wrote:
Is it your claim that an explosive device -loaded with black power and ball bearings- which killed 3, maimed dozens and injured more than 170 is NOT a weapon of mass destruction? (not to mention the economic, social and emotional costs to the witnesses, to the city of Boston and the United States as a whole) Because if so, your conception of what constitutes "mass destruction" might merit reevaluation.

Then by that definition every piece of ordinance in the US army is a WMD, every country on earth is in possession of WMD's, every mass shooting the gun used is a WMD.

Yes, indeed. That's precisely the point.

So there were and still are WMD's in Iraq? Both sides of the Syrian civil war are in possession of WMDs? We supplied WMD's to the Taliban in the 80s?

Way beyond the scope of this topic, but H. W. Bush gave Hussien VX nerve gas -which he then used to wage genocide against the Kurds. The United States did not intend for that to happen, or think that Saddam used it all. Hussien was also claiming to develop nuclear weapons (presumably to deter a US invasion), even though we now know he lied.

Ya, we gave Iraq the technology to create chemical weapons to use on Iran, those chemical weapons much more closely fit the bill of WMD, but you're saying gunpowder surrounded by shrapnel and a triggering mechanism is a WMD, Iraq has lots of those.

In the original resolution to invade Iraq, the term 'weapons of mass destruction' was used, either it didn't carry any legal weight or it did. If it didn't we were all duped by Washington double speak, if it did, these home made pipe bombs don't fit the bill.

So, you have a conception of what constitutes a WMD. US law differs from that conception. The disagreement between your stance and that of US law hinges on the extent to which the scale of destruction can be called "mass destruction." On one end of the spectrum, it's clear -like with VX nerve gas or Nukes. On the other end, there are IEDs such as the one detonated by Trarnaiev. You can take semantic issue with the charge, but you're opinion is incongruent with US law and therefore wrong. It is beyond that fact futile to argue about it.

You're saying the point is that the term WMD means nothing? That the rifle and gunpowder in my gun case is a WMD?

That's not what I'm saying at all. lol

It's not? It's capable of killing and maiming dozens, isn't that your definition of a WMD?

No, it's not. You're citing extraneous examples that are beyond the scope of what I've said. Again, you can argue, and not to be a prick about it, but you'll still be wrong.
Tsar of DDO
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 4:31:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/22/2013 4:27:23 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 4/22/2013 12:49:42 PM, lewis20 wrote:
I just heard on CNN that the Boston Bombing suspect is going to be officially charged with using a weapon of mass destruction.

Is it just me or does WMD not have any real meaning anymore? I used to understand WMD's as being nukes, then nukes and chemical and biological weapons, but now they are going to legally claim that pressure cooker bomb is a WMD?
Anyone else find that ridiculous? WMD apparently doesn't hold much legal weight at all.

What a strange thing to complain about.. Tsarnaev- you guys pals? Ya may as well be. Idiot.

I be one o dem terrorist lovin liberl pansies, he aint got no rights, he a bad man, he deserved lynched like we's do back in de good ol' days.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 4:31:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/22/2013 4:24:30 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 4/22/2013 4:17:01 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/22/2013 4:11:46 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 4/22/2013 4:04:15 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/22/2013 3:59:11 PM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:
The guy killed people with a make-shift bomb. That should be enough to give him the death sentence already, so I don't see why his crime needs to be kicked up a notch like this. What difference will it make? Are you going to kill him harder?

I'd actually be surprised if he receives the death penalty. The charge is not "kicked up a notch," it is sufficient to account for the crime he committed.

Killing people, maiming people, killing police, armed assault of police, evading arrest etc. I'm sure there are a bunch other charges I can't think of off the top of my head, aren't enough?

I didn't say that his crimes were not sufficient to merit the death penalty, but only that I WOULD BE SURPRISED if he actually received it.

Come on, Lewis. Read.

You implied that the charges, without adding the charge of WMD, weren't sufficient enough.

I said nothing about the charges. I spoke only of what would actually transpire.

Again, Lewis. Read. Read only what I write, do not make assumptions that are not drawable from what I write. That implication did not follow, because I was in that context not talking about charges.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 4:32:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/22/2013 4:31:20 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 4/22/2013 4:27:23 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 4/22/2013 12:49:42 PM, lewis20 wrote:
I just heard on CNN that the Boston Bombing suspect is going to be officially charged with using a weapon of mass destruction.

Is it just me or does WMD not have any real meaning anymore? I used to understand WMD's as being nukes, then nukes and chemical and biological weapons, but now they are going to legally claim that pressure cooker bomb is a WMD?
Anyone else find that ridiculous? WMD apparently doesn't hold much legal weight at all.

What a strange thing to complain about.. Tsarnaev- you guys pals? Ya may as well be. Idiot.

I be one o dem terrorist lovin liberl pansies, he aint got no rights, he a bad man, he deserved lynched like we's do back in de good ol' days.

Both of you, don't be absurd.
Tsar of DDO
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 4:34:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
YYZ, the legal definition of a WMD is anything that blows up and kills multiple people, right?
So there were WMD's in Iraq, legally speaking, correct?
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 4:35:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/22/2013 4:31:46 PM, YYW wrote:

I said nothing about the charges. I spoke only of what would actually transpire.

Again, Lewis. Read. Read only what I write, do not make assumptions that are not drawable from what I write. That implication did not follow, because I was in that context not talking about charges.

Then clear up my confusion, are the charges, not including 'use of a WMD', sufficient?
Or does he need to be charged with the use of a WMD?
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 4:38:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/22/2013 4:34:15 PM, lewis20 wrote:
YYZ, the legal definition of a WMD is anything that blows up and kills multiple people, right?

No.

So there were WMD's in Iraq, legally speaking, correct?

That's a complicated question, which I don't see any point in discussing because whether or not there were WMD's of any kind in Iraq is tangential to the point that Tsarnaev is being charged with using a WMD against civilians.
Tsar of DDO