Boston Bombing Suspect Charged With Using Weapon of Mass Destruction

page: 4
8
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 12:14 AM
link   
reply to post by kosmicjack
 
It did but the Feds upped the anti the link is in on the first or second page it is not clear cut, it does spell out the basic's but does not say how it is applied. here is the post that spells the law out www.abovetopsecret.com... there is a post that has the FED page but it says the same thing but explains in more detail as to when and why wmd/wmd faqs www.fbi.gov...

edit on 23-4-2013 by bekod because: added link, line edit
edit on 23-4-2013 by bekod because: added link, line edit




posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 10:08 AM
link   
Any bomb can be classified as a weapon of mass destruction depending on the setting it is used. You guys are thinking on yield when you should be thinking about setting.

If a pressure cooker is set off in a nearly empty street at midnight with no one in the street you can't be charged with using a weapon of mass destruction or at least you lawyer will have a good day if you were accused of using a WMD.

On the other hand if you set off a bomb in the middle of a mass of people such as the Boston marathon you are using a device intending to cause mass destruction.

It doesn't need to be a nuke to cause mass destruction. It just needs to be a really crowded area.



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 10:18 AM
link   
Then the usa should be on trial for wmd bombing the crap out of Afghanistan , Iraq , drone strikes in Pakistan.

Not to mention that usa is at war fighting terrorism , why do some people think it is ok to bomb the crap out of other countries and treat a little explosion in the usa to that of a ballistic missile really is beyond me . The fact that the usa has not had more bombings is beyond me .



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 10:18 AM
link   
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 nuke bomb.

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....



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 07:52 PM
link   
A well placed molotov cocktail could easily cause 100x the damage those 2 pressure cookers did.

I guess those are WMD's? too?



  exclusive video


new topics
 
8
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join