Fezmid Posted September 1, 2004 Share Posted September 1, 2004 fezmid... whatever the law defines a WMD as, is a WMD... whether you, or anyone else likes it or not. How do you define what a WMD is? I'm pretty sure that if one of those pipe bombs went off during school hours it would cause mass destruction... glass, metal, electric, human life, injuries, structural damage. If a pipe bomb can't be considered a WMD, then I'd hate like hell to see a real one. It may not be on par with anthax, or a dirty bomb, but how mayn lives have to be taken for a pipebomb to be considered a WMD? Fine, then the war in Iraq was justified because they have WMD. Ludicrous statement, no? CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeRay Posted September 1, 2004 Share Posted September 1, 2004 Fine, then the war in Iraq was justified because they have WMD. Ludicrous statement, no? CW Dude... I don't know why you needed to go there, but the "on the record facts" are that pi$$ poor intelligence by several country's intelligence gathering. WMD alone was not the reason the US is in Iraq... obviously, several other countries were condeming Iraq for repeatedly violating the terms of the gulf war cease fire and the WMD inspections. Sanctions didn't work becausae pussies like Russia, France, and Germany all broke them under the table. To add to that Iraq's open sponsorship to the Palistinians terror ventures as well as their indirect alliance with Al queda. I'm pretty sure it was better to pre-empt a rogue state like Iraq before they handed off WMD stuff to al queda an d some of the others. There were some WMD's found... ilegal missiles, etc, but you write theose off for some reasons... just because we didn't find 2 tons of anthrax and 6 tons of enriched uranium doesn't make the missles any less of an offense. And what makes you think that WMD's were not moved into Syria or Iran in cars, carts, trucks, or in suitcases? would you bet your child's life on it that it didn't happen? So back to the pipebomb thingy.... why would you say it is "ludicrous"? The kid is being charged with posession of WMD. Are you a lawyer? Do you think the prosecuting attorney is devoid of intelligence? Do you think he'd charge the kid with WMD because he though it was a goos idea? Now, don't forget to give me your definition of WMD... How many lives have to be taken or threatened for a pipebomb to be considered a WMD?. Is there another reason for somone to possess a pipebomb other than to cause mass destruction? Hello? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted September 1, 2004 Share Posted September 1, 2004 ... So back to the pipebomb thingy.... why would you say it is "ludicrous"? The kid is being charged with posession of WMD. Are you a lawyer? Do you think the prosecuting attorney is devoid of intelligence? Do you think he'd charge the kid with WMD because he though it was a goos idea? Now, don't forget to give me your definition of WMD... How many lives have to be taken or threatened for a pipebomb to be considered a WMD?. Is there another reason for somone to possess a pipebomb other than to cause mass destruction? Hello? 14628[/snapback] Wow, way to jump to conclusions... I was actually in favor of the war, even knowing then what I know now. But either a pipebomb is a WMD (in which case, Iraq is loaded with them), or it's not. I still don't see how you can call it a WMD. Is there some other reason for someone to possess a pipebomb? Well, the story says that he was making fireworks. It also specifically states that the police have NOT stated what kind of pipebombs they are or how dangerous they were. A firework is very similar to a pipebomb -- stuff gunpowder into a tube, light it, it explodes and sends stuff scattering around. You don't know all of the facts, just like I don't. And stop asking for a ridiculous, "How many lives have to be threatened for a pipebomb to be considered a WMD," because it's irrelevant. How many people can I threaten with my car? Yet my car isn't a WMD. How many people can I threaten with my handgun (which I don't actually own)? Yet my gun isn't a WMD. There very well may be a NEW law stating the classifications of a WMD - however, most of these new laws were knee-jerk reactions to 9/11 (sorta like the Patriot Act). CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cale Posted September 1, 2004 Share Posted September 1, 2004 Sigh! The debate on whether we were justified going into Iraq not withstanding... I get your point (I think) ch19079. Although I think it's stupid to charge the kid with the WMDs charge. I do think it warrants treating it as a class 1 felony and trying to find out if there's more to it. ie. are there other kids involved etc. ala Columbine. But I also think you're right - if it was a Muslim kid, this wouldn't be a kid that was "just curious" - it would be a "jihad." I've thought similar things in the wake of 9/11 - prior to 9/11 Timothy McVeigh perpertrated one of the worst crimes against citizens of the US. Yet, he's just a "psycho." Whereas, now post 9/11 any Muslim - is a potential "terrorist." So now we have militia running around the woods of Michigan with AK-47s free of molestation. Yet, innocent folks on an airplane are pulled off for the sake of "national security." Also, no one barbed-wired Pendleton and Lockport after everyone discovered that was where McVeigh was from. Nor should those towns have been. But again this whole "they're all the same" mentality is just prejudiced and racist. It is a double standard. And unless the govt and our security agencies can call a spade, a spade - all the precautions we take to avoid another 9/11 is just a farce. Charles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spidey Posted September 1, 2004 Share Posted September 1, 2004 ok, a few weeks ago, a kid was arrested with 15 pipe bombs found in his room just 3 days befor the first day of school. (highschool kid). here in Apex, NC. they charged him with weapons of mass destruction. i think it was mentioned on this site..... but i live in apex, and im getting pissed. ok, its not that im mad over him having the bombs... but i am mad about all the dumb people saying "he was just curious". if you dont know, it was a white kid. now if his name was muhommed or some other arabic name, they would have the CIA and be interagating this guy for months. but cus hes just a white kid, he was just CURIOUS???? there are alot of people "supporting" this little terrorist!!!!!! he was going to blow up his school the first day of classes. and they want to just let him go. doest this seem strange to any of you??? sorry its OT 14213[/snapback] Loved his fathers remarks. it was just fireworks and you need to make a few of them if you really doing a fireworks display. What gets me more is the judge is releasing him to be managed by his parents. Remember the US has been struck by both internal and external terroist organizations I dont see a war being waged against the supremist groups etc that supported Oklahoma OOOPs that would take out alot of republican voters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 1, 2004 Share Posted September 1, 2004 fezmid... whatever the law defines a WMD as, is a WMD... whether you, or anyone else likes it or not. How do you define what a WMD is? I'm pretty sure that if one of those pipe bombs went off during school hours it would cause mass destruction... glass, metal, electric, human life, injuries, structural damage. If a pipe bomb can't be considered a WMD, then I'd hate like hell to see a real one. It may not be on par with anthax, or a dirty bomb, but how mayn lives have to be taken for a pipebomb to be considered a WMD? It's no different than some of the drug laws.... in Oregon you can possess up to an ounce of grass and you're not breaking the law. If you carry an ounce of grass in NYS it could be a felony. So this kid with 15 pipe bombs deserves to be punished to the max... I don't care how old he is. Apparently, he has no conception of right and wrong. A person like that is extremely dangerous and I couldn't care less if they locked him up for life. 14555[/snapback] The term "weapon of mass destruction" is a military term specifically intended to refer to a nuclear explosive, or biological or chemical agent. The intent behind the term is to distinguish "mass casualty" causing devices that work over a very large area from "conventional" weapons with only localized effects (e.g. bullets, artillery, bombs.) "WMDs" are also traditionally strategic weapons, intended to threaten the strategic/economic depth of an adversary. A pipe bomb is neither a "mass casualty" causing device, nor a strategic weapon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spidey Posted September 1, 2004 Share Posted September 1, 2004 The term "weapon of mass destruction" is a military term specifically intended to refer to a nuclear explosive, or biological or chemical agent. The intent behind the term is to distinguish "mass casualty" causing devices that work over a very large area from "conventional" weapons with only localized effects (e.g. bullets, artillery, bombs.) "WMDs" are also traditionally strategic weapons, intended to threaten the strategic/economic depth of an adversary. A pipe bomb is neither a "mass casualty" causing device, nor a strategic weapon. 14721[/snapback] I guess depends on what mass casualty means, however does seem to be a strategic weapon for bus bombers in Israel. What gets me was the way parents wrote it off as a few fireworks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted September 1, 2004 Share Posted September 1, 2004 I guess depends on what mass casualty means, however does seem to be a strategic weapon for bus bombers in Israel. What gets me was the way parents wrote it off as a few fireworks. 14757[/snapback] How do you know that's NOT what it is? The police havn't released what the bombs were made of, how dangerous they were, etc. And technically a pipe bomb is just explosives in a tube (like fireworks), no? Of course, the parents could just be in denial as well... CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted September 1, 2004 Share Posted September 1, 2004 How things have changed. When I was in grade school in the '50's and high school in the '60's, in the Bflo. public schools, the odd thing would be the boy who didn't carry a jacknife to school. And additionally, even though the cafeterias freely handed out metal knifes and forks, nobody was getting stabbed. And if you had a bit of $, you could go to your local drugstore and buy all the potassium nitrate and sulfur you could afford. We got the carbon from lump charcoal. But curiously, no bombings occured. I guess those 'ol "judgemental" days weren't so bad, after all... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_BiB_ Posted September 1, 2004 Share Posted September 1, 2004 How things have changed. When I was in grade school in the '50's and high school in the '60's, in the Bflo. public schools, the odd thing would be the boy who didn't carry a jacknife to school. And additionally, even though the cafeterias freely handed out metal knifes and forks, nobody was getting stabbed. And if you had a bit of $, you could go to your local drugstore and buy all the potassium nitrate and sulfur you could afford. We got the carbon from lump charcoal. But curiously, no bombings occured. I guess those 'ol "judgemental" days weren't so bad, after all... 14805[/snapback] When I went to high school, it wasn't unusual to have a shotgun in the trunk of the car if it were pheasant or deer season. If it was a nice one, you'd often have a teacher out there taking a look and comparing notes. And, we never could get our homemade fireworks to light, let alone blow up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ch19079 Posted September 1, 2004 Author Share Posted September 1, 2004 a home made bomb is a WMD (though i dont think a gernade is a WMD.... ) a biological weapon is a WMD but, a home made bomb DOES NOT = a biological weapon just cus there both WMD, does not mean there on the level with eachother. and i figured if hes on trial for WMD, they wouldnt let him out without a huge bail. on a side note if bush said " we must invade, cus there making pipe bombs" we would just lauph. but if 15 pipe bombs went of in a small highschool, killing 10, and injuring 30, it would be national news. we care alot more about 10 dead kids in america, than 1,000 dead kids in Iraq. so any "device" found in america is usually classified more harshly than if found outside our borders. in Iraq, a WMD would mean nukes, bio, or chemical weapons. in America, 15 homemade bombs are considered WMD. but i dont think the kid will be in Guantanamo bay, Cuba any time soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 1, 2004 Share Posted September 1, 2004 a home made bomb is a WMD (though i dont think a gernade is a WMD.... )a biological weapon is a WMD but, a home made bomb DOES NOT = a biological weapon just cus there both WMD, does not mean there on the level with eachother. and i figured if hes on trial for WMD, they wouldnt let him out without a huge bail. on a side note if bush said " we must invade, cus there making pipe bombs" we would just lauph. but if 15 pipe bombs went of in a small highschool, killing 10, and injuring 30, it would be national news. we care alot more about 10 dead kids in america, than 1,000 dead kids in Iraq. so any "device" found in america is usually classified more harshly than if found outside our borders. in Iraq, a WMD would mean nukes, bio, or chemical weapons. in America, 15 homemade bombs are considered WMD. but i dont think the kid will be in Guantanamo bay, Cuba any time soon. 14876[/snapback] No, a WMD is specifically defined as a chem, bio, or nuclear weapon. Not "anything that kills more than one person". Try and get this straight, people: it doesn't matter what you THINK a WMD is. The term has a SPECIFIC definition outside your retarded little idiot thought processes. A homemade bomb is NOT a WMD, because the term is not DEFINED to include homemade bombs. A letter full of anthrax is, because that's what the term WMD was created to describe! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted September 1, 2004 Share Posted September 1, 2004 No, a WMD is specifically defined as a chem, bio, or nuclear weapon. Not "anything that kills more than one person". Try and get this straight, people: it doesn't matter what you THINK a WMD is. The term has a SPECIFIC definition outside your retarded little idiot thought processes. A homemade bomb is NOT a WMD, because the term is not DEFINED to include homemade bombs. A letter full of anthrax is, because that's what the term WMD was created to describe! 15022[/snapback] Thank you DC Tom. It's nice to have real definitions to prove your point CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigAL Posted September 1, 2004 Share Posted September 1, 2004 No, a WMD is specifically defined as a chem, bio, or nuclear weapon. Not "anything that kills more than one person". Try and get this straight, people: it doesn't matter what you THINK a WMD is. The term has a SPECIFIC definition outside your retarded little idiot thought processes. A homemade bomb is NOT a WMD, because the term is not DEFINED to include homemade bombs. A letter full of anthrax is, because that's what the term WMD was created to describe! 15022[/snapback] Well, it looks like everyone is right on this one. WMD history and definition Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts