Man charged over US 'bomb plot'

news.bbc.co.uk...

An airport shuttle bus driver in the US has been charged with conspiring to use weapons of mass destruction.

Afghan-born Najibullah Zazi, 24, was charged by the New York Grand Jury with plotting to use one or more explosive devices on US territory.

WMD's???!!

I thought WMD's were nukes, biological and chemical weapons. So are these plots using these such devices then?

I thought these plots were with hydrogen peroxide bombs:

Tiny, cheap and deadly: hydrogen peroxide bombs

WASHINGTON — A quart-sized container of homemade explosives is cheap, deadly and difficult to detect — and that is exactly why the type of chemical bomb feared to be at the heart of an ongoing terror investigation worries law enforcement so much.

As FBI and New York police counterterrorism agents investigate a Denver man who authorities say received al-Qaida explosives training and recently traveled to New York, law enforcement officials around the nation have been advised to be on the lookout for any signs of bombs built with hydrogen peroxide.

[edit on 24-9-2009 by john124]

In a statement, the US Department of Justice said Mr Zazi had "knowingly and intentionally conspired with others to use one or more weapons of mass destruction, specifically explosive bombs and other similar explosive devices, against persons or property within the United States".

Are hydrogen peroxide bombs considered WMD's now?

reply to post by john124


Well, if these are WMD's, then we are all guilty! I use bigger explosives than that on my stubborn tree stumps!

I guess Bush had it all wrong! He just needed to redefine WMD's to fix all of his ailments! Surely Saddam had something a little bigger than a cherry bomb!

This poor patsy is in big trouble! I bet it is scary to be a cab driver in New York all of a sudden! They are all Middle-Eastern, and they frequently go to government buildings and airports, and they carry at least 15-20 gallons of gasoline in their tanks! God forbid a passenger throw a sack of fertilizer in the trunk on the way to the airport!

reply to post by getreadyalready


LOL everyone who owns a car has a WMD.

From what I've found online it doesnt look like you
can do very much with hydrogen peroxide except
to clean your scabs. can you make a seriously
dangerous weapon with this? Just wait till the
gub'mint finds out you can make nitrite with
your urine. Catheter required for all passengers

I don't care if this Muslim terrorist got caught with a sling-shot. He is off the street. Thanks to great battlefield intelligence!

Originally posted by RRconservative
I don't care if this Muslim terrorist got caught with a sling-shot. He is off the street. Thanks to great battlefield intelligence!

Yeah except they haven't proved he is a terrorist.

Some people still believe in innocent until proven guilty.

Some.

reply to post by mkross1983


Guilty of being a Muslim who happened to know some other Muslim who is suspected.

Anyway here's wikipedia definition of WMDs:

A weapon of mass destruction (WMD) is a weapon that can kill large numbers of humans and/or cause great damage to man-made structures (e.g. buildings), natural structures (e.g. mountains), or the biosphere in general.

The term is often used to cover several weapon types, including nuclear, biological, chemical (NBC) and radiological weapons. Additional terms used in a military context include atomic, biological, and chemical warfare (ABC) and chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) warfare.

Hydrogen Peroxide like was used in the London bombings in 2005, are no more a WMD than an Al qaeda truck bombing in Pakistan or the IRA bombings. I wish the term WMD wouldn't get thrown around unless it's actually a WMD.

Soon any gun or rifle will be called a WMD cos' one gun can kill many hundreds if they have enough ammunition.

Unless the original news story was inferring that the terrorist was actually conspiring to use bio/chem/nuke weapons. I would hope not!

Either way, it's still serious to overplay a threat, or re-define a potential threat, unless it's just blatent poor & ignorant journalism.

[edit on 24-9-2009 by john124]

Yeah, I think the term "WMD" is used too loosely.

Nevertheless, as said above, I stand by the view of "innocent until proven guilty."

reply to post by Mak Manto


I agree, although an explosive that is lesser than a traditional WMD (bio/chem/nuke) could fit into the description of a WMD say if it brought down a skyscraper killing thousands.