BREAKING: Explosions at Boston Marathon
- Thread starter Bounty
- Start date
ElectroWaffle
Veteran XX
Daily Mail is sensational.
I have an issue with them charging the bomber with a weapons of mass destruction charge. it wasn't that big of a bomb. is our military dropping weapons of mass destruction on people every time they blow something up with 500 pound bomb or shoot something with a drone? do hand grenades now count as weapons of mass destruction?
paulmezick
Veteran XV
I dont have a problem with it.
They certainly were intending to cause mass death. Many more people would have died had there hadn't been such a quick response to the bombings. They intended on killing more than just those 3 people.
They certainly were intending to cause mass death. Many more people would have died had there hadn't been such a quick response to the bombings. They intended on killing more than just those 3 people.
sounds like something any number of retard TW college kids would do.
Sadly, for once, I agree with Cogz (might be the last time ever).
The punishment for him killing those 3 people, not to mention maiming so many others, should already be so egregious he gets the death penalty.
If McVeigh can go from sentencing to death in a hand full of months I expect the same damn thing for this kid.
I hate trumped up charges, like hate crimes, etc, in order to sensationalize the verdict. First degree murder, of this magnitude, should be so severely punished it would be like triple stamping a double stamp. Totally unnecessary and impossible to do.
I don't disagree with that, but I think there's something wrong with saying he was using a weapon of mass destruction when we use weapons every day that have far greater yield. it's a diluting the meaning of the term "weapon of mass destruction" from something that actually means something serious to a political buzz word that only applies when they want to say someone is a bad person.
basically, they've been making a lot of noise about how these boston pressure cooker bombs are like IEDs that have been used in Iraq and Afghanistan. if that's the case, have the terrorists in Iraq been setting off multiple weapons of mass destruction every week for the past ten years?
this is what a weapon of mass destruction does: http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/08/hiroshima_64_years_ago.html
As are these.......
2 terms!!
2 terms!!
paulmezick
Veteran XV
I suppose I agree. It doesn't really do justice to the phrase "weapon of mass destruction" and certainly makes the results of one seem extremely diluted. There really is no difference between charging him with this or charging him with multiple murders. I suppose they should save an actual weapons of mass destruction charge for a more appropriate scenario.
5 Weapons of Mass Destruction the U.S. Military Uses Every Day - Forbes
which means that in bush's illegal wars he was raining down weapons of mass destruction on his enemies and he's even more of a war criminal than previously thought.
same with obama with his semi-illegal cross border drone strikes.
hooray for us. USA USA USA
which means that in bush's illegal wars he was raining down weapons of mass destruction on his enemies and he's even more of a war criminal than previously thought.
same with obama with his semi-illegal cross border drone strikes.
hooray for us. USA USA USA
This terminology is intentionally being used to convolute these issues.
Weapon of mass destruction is now being defined as anything that can harm multiple people at the same time.
I've even seen it applied so vaguely to gun shootings.
Guns are Weapons of Mass Destruction: Newtown School Shooting Lessons
Terrorism is what we call it when a smaller military takes on an established military.
The minute men were terrorists by this modern day definition.
Next we are working on calling everyone like this, through the NDAA, an "enemy combatant" in order to strip them of their Constitutional rights.
It's all in an attempt to apply the Bill of Rights selectively and according to the governments discretion, which essentially invalidates the entire point of having it to begin with. They know this, it is methodical, not unintentional.
paulmezick
Veteran XV
The guy in that video is such a weiner.
there is no standing enemy army. just asshat civilians taking pot shots at the us military and then using women and children as bullet shields.
these r terrorists plain and simple and must be labeled as such so they can be dealt w/.
if they're not going to comply with the international rules of war agreed upon by the international community then they dont deserve the protections it affords either.
these r terrorists plain and simple and must be labeled as such so they can be dealt w/.
if they're not going to comply with the international rules of war agreed upon by the international community then they dont deserve the protections it affords either.
Might be so.......but he has a good point.
We do the hell out of this and have for decades.
Years ago it was called swamps.
dingy, damp, dirty, nasty places that nobody gave a shit about and many feared.
Today we call them "wetlands"......now they are ecosystems, they are pure, they are pristine, they need to be protected at any and all costs.
If we had this mentality fifty years ago there wouldn't be a Disney World today......what Disney did to build that empire wouldn't have been possible today.
If they were a standing enemy army they would already established. That just reaffirms my point that the minute men, who founded this country, were "terrorists" under this definition.
Thank goodness for "terrorism" or this country wouldn't have ever been established and it could have still been a colony.
Do you kill them twice? How exactly do you war against terrorists any differently than these guys (Hollywood bank robbery).
I assume you are talking about the Geneva convention. And I agree.....if you go to war against something you shouldn't expect that something to later be there to protect you.
There's a point of view that those protections are as much for the detainer as the detainee.
Same goes for regulations in general these days. So I could most certainly appreciate that argument.