posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 10:18 AM
Is the problem not, everyone assosiates WMD's with Iraq so the wording is assosiated with Nuclear\Chmeical etc.
So obviously you could argue a big enough bomb can cause a large (mass) amount of destruction. but people see WMD and think big nasty terrorist mega
as such when people talk back about this, when the press talk about this, they will say man is charged with usign and attempting to use WMD and thats
what people will remeber,
is this not a way to (although it was a terrible sequence of events, and entirley unforgivable) make this whole situation seem like it was so much
worse, justify the marshal law lock down??
im sure with little effort i could find stories from boston (or lots of the east coast of america) of IRA members\IRA sympothisers in the late 70's
early 80's being busted with IED's but them being called "car bombs" , "pipe bombs" and in some cases "improvised explosive devices" but never
has there ever been a news story i can recall where someone was using a "WMD" when it was infact a "car bomb" or similar....
on another note, in an open quary when using dynamite to blow down a wall or new section, would the operator now be classed as a "Mass Destruction"
expert (removing the weapon as he wouldnt be attackign anyone)
it just seems like a strange way to define a situation....