When Did IEDs Become WMD?

When Did IEDs Become WMD? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

jlf1961 -> When Did IEDs Become WMD? (3/31/2010 12:11:18 PM)
quote: When Did IEDs Become WMD? After the WTC bombing. By Brian PalmerPosted Wednesday, March 31, 2010, at 1:18 PM ET ...In 1994. Since its origins in the 1940s, the phrase weapons of mass destruction has typically referred to some combination of nuclear, biological, chemical, and radioactive weaponry. But, in a sweeping 1994 crime bill, Congress defined the term to include weapons previously known only as "destructive devices," such as bombs, grenades, mines, and guns with a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter that are not common in sport hunting. Under U.S. Code Title 18, Section 2332a, murder by WMD is now one of 50 death-penalty-eligible federal offenses, along with treason, espionage, drive-by shooting, and murdering a member of Congress. There is nothing in the congressional record showing why then-Sen. Joseph Biden, who drafted the language, defined the term so broadly, but the bill was introduced a few months after the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, in which conventional weapons killed six and wounded more than 1,000 people. Full story This question came up in the thread about the militia group raided by the FBI. I felt it deserved its own thread simply on the grounds that I feel that a pipe bomb should not be in the same category as a truck loaded with explosives.

Musicmystery -> RE: When Did IEDs Become WMD? (3/31/2010 12:22:43 PM)
I'm not sure it changes the situation at hand in any substantial way. Agreed, it's not the connotation historical to WMD. They did still intend to kill a bunch of people.

pahunkboy -> RE: When Did IEDs Become WMD? (3/31/2010 12:28:47 PM)
FR- I think there is a mad EX somewhere in the mix.

jlf1961 -> RE: When Did IEDs Become WMD? (3/31/2010 12:46:47 PM)
Hunky I was making a comment about the definition of WMD, not the raid against the militia. I fail to see how a pipe bomb with limited destructive range could be considered a WMD. The blast effect is localized, while the shrapnel would have a larger effective range. When I think of a WMD, the smallest of which I put in that category is a truck bomb.

LadyEllen -> RE: When Did IEDs Become WMD? (3/31/2010 1:16:11 PM)
On a positive note, there is now no doubt whatever that Saddam Hussein had WMDs and the precedent has been set for a lawful invasion of any state that has so much as a hand grenade in its arsenal. E

Real0ne -> RE: When Did IEDs Become WMD? (3/31/2010 3:32:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen On a positive note, there is now no doubt whatever that Saddam Hussein had WMDs and the precedent has been set for a lawful invasion of any state that has so much as a hand grenade in its arsenal. E well th eus government has shit loads of them! That and I guess we should file against them then since they have used shitloads of wmds to kill afghans and iraqis. Hell lets keep it closer to home..... How about that tank they killed all the innocent women and children with at waco? Over a fucking 200 dollar gun license? I think the biggest problem with this country is that no one seems to realize that the USCode "knife" cuts both ways! Why people do not realize this is beyond me.

Aneirin -> RE: When Did IEDs Become WMD? (3/31/2010 5:00:08 PM)
Keep describing killing things as WMD's and we will see them everywhere and when WMD is such a common word, the invasion of Iraq will be justified, as Saddam was found to have a shot gun in his house. It would be useful if the term mass was defined if we are to apply the term; WMD to weapons, so we all know what is meant and hinder any silliness on the parts of those who wish to justify their actions.

DomKen -> RE: When Did IEDs Become WMD? (3/31/2010 5:01:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 quote: When Did IEDs Become WMD? After the WTC bombing. By Brian PalmerPosted Wednesday, March 31, 2010, at 1:18 PM ET ...In 1994. Since its origins in the 1940s, the phrase weapons of mass destruction has typically referred to some combination of nuclear, biological, chemical, and radioactive weaponry. But, in a sweeping 1994 crime bill, Congress defined the term to include weapons previously known only as "destructive devices," such as bombs, grenades, mines, and guns with a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter that are not common in sport hunting. Under U.S. Code Title 18, Section 2332a, murder by WMD is now one of 50 death-penalty-eligible federal offenses, along with treason, espionage, drive-by shooting, and murdering a member of Congress. There is nothing in the congressional record showing why then-Sen. Joseph Biden, who drafted the language, defined the term so broadly, but the bill was introduced a few months after the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, in which conventional weapons killed six and wounded more than 1,000 people. Full story This question came up in the thread about the militia group raided by the FBI. I felt it deserved its own thread simply on the grounds that I feel that a pipe bomb should not be in the same category as a truck loaded with explosives. AIUI they weren't planning on using pipebombs but were intending to use shaped charge weapons to attack vehicles in a funeral procession. I'm not sure I'd define a shaped charge explosive as a WMD but teh fact is that properly used such a device could do a whole lot of damage.

popeye1250 -> RE: When Did IEDs Become WMD? (3/31/2010 5:05:23 PM)
"Pipe Bombs?" We made those when we were kids! Blew up mailboxes and all kinds of stuff with them. To me a "WMD" would be a "dirty" nuke or worse.

Real0ne -> RE: When Did IEDs Become WMD? (3/31/2010 5:11:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 "Pipe Bombs?" We made those when we were kids! Blew up mailboxes and all kinds of stuff with them. To me a "WMD" would be a "dirty" nuke or worse. they want a case on record that they can use as precedent against anyone who has a firecracker. Same shit they pulled with the gold fringe flag, they got someone who did not know what they were doing and to this day even though the gold fringe flag in the courts IS and has been proven to be a military flag in a "supposed" civilian court any time someone tries to use is as a defense they summarily toss it out citing that case. "Even though its pure bullshit"!

Kirata -> RE: When Did IEDs Become WMD? (3/31/2010 5:16:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aneirin It would be useful if the term mass was defined if we are to apply the term; WMD to weapons, so we all know what is meant and hinder any silliness on the parts of those who wish to justify their actions. Indeed. I always thought, from the way I've heard the acronym used, that it intended a nuclear, thermonuclear, or widely-disseminable biological weapon capable of inflicting damage on a massive scale. Somehow, "bombs, grenades, mines, and guns with a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter," don't seem to make the grade. K.

flcouple2009 -> RE: When Did IEDs Become WMD? (3/31/2010 5:22:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne "Even though its pure bullshit"! That's a great description of your post

Aneirin -> RE: When Did IEDs Become WMD? (3/31/2010 5:22:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: Aneirin It would be useful if the term mass was defined if we are to apply the term; WMD to weapons, so we all know what is meant and hinder any silliness on the parts of those who wish to justify their actions. Indeed. I always thought, from the way I've heard the acronym used, that it intended a nuclear, thermonuclear, or widely-disseminable biological weapon capable of inflicting damage on a massive scale. Somehow, "bombs, grenades, mines, and guns with a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter," don't seem to make the grade. K. That, is what I understood a WMD to be. We have to be very careful not to allow this transference of terms when used by people who wish to make political gain from a situation. We allow the making mountains out of molehills and we are on a very slippery path down hill.

popeye1250 -> RE: When Did IEDs Become WMD? (3/31/2010 5:24:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: Aneirin It would be useful if the term mass was defined if we are to apply the term; WMD to weapons, so we all know what is meant and hinder any silliness on the parts of those who wish to justify their actions. Indeed. I always thought, from the way I've heard the acronym used, that it intended a nuclear, thermonuclear, or widely-disseminable biological weapon capable of inflicting damage on a massive scale. Somehow, "bombs, grenades, mines, and guns with a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter," don't seem to make the grade. K. Kirata, one would think anyway that any "WMD" would be capable of killing "thousands" at once. You can lose 250 people in a plane crash. And "shaped charges" are easy to make but they don't even kill "dozens" or "tens." They're made for penetrating armoured vehicles and may or may not kill the people in them. A "WMD" is probably way beyond the capabilities of any individuals or groups, thankfully!

Real0ne -> RE: When Did IEDs Become WMD? (3/31/2010 5:34:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: flcouple2009 [image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/stuff/1405488465_096fd1f181.jpg[/image] That's a great description of your post Hows dinner?

Real0ne -> RE: When Did IEDs Become WMD? (3/31/2010 5:40:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: Aneirin It would be useful if the term mass was defined if we are to apply the term; WMD to weapons, so we all know what is meant and hinder any silliness on the parts of those who wish to justify their actions. Indeed. I always thought, from the way I've heard the acronym used, that it intended a nuclear, thermonuclear, or widely-disseminable biological weapon capable of inflicting damage on a massive scale. Somehow, "bombs, grenades, mines, and guns with a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter," don't seem to make the grade. K. Kirata, one would think anyway that any "WMD" would be capable of killing "thousands" at once. You can lose 250 people in a plane crash. And "shaped charges" are easy to make but they don't even kill "dozens" or "tens." They're made for penetrating armoured vehicles and may or may not kill the people in them. A "WMD" is probably way beyond the capabilities of any individuals or groups, thankfully! If you mean a nuke yeh, but chemical bombs are like high school physics. kids make nitro for pete sakes. If you want to use their logic a semi auto pistol is a wmd.

rulemylife -> RE: When Did IEDs Become WMD? (3/31/2010 5:47:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen On a positive note, there is now no doubt whatever that Saddam Hussein had WMDs and the precedent has been set for a lawful invasion of any state that has so much as a hand grenade in its arsenal. E The precedent was already set with the Bush Doctrine. We only have to believe there is a threat and off we go to war.

Thadius -> RE: When Did IEDs Become WMD? (3/31/2010 5:49:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen On a positive note, there is now no doubt whatever that Saddam Hussein had WMDs and the precedent has been set for a lawful invasion of any state that has so much as a hand grenade in its arsenal. E The precedent was already set with the Bush Doctrine. We only have to believe there is a threat and off we go to war. So you are accepting the new definition? Or are you admitting that according to this definition that Bush wasn't lying? I get confused around here, oh and the wording presented earlier in the thread was written by Sen. Kerry.[8\|]

Musicmystery -> RE: When Did IEDs Become WMD? (3/31/2010 7:12:27 PM)
It's just the latest in a long slope---the "war" on terror, the "enemy combatants" status, and so forth. Fortunately, you can eat some Freedom Fries and it all goes away.

LadyEllen -> RE: When Did IEDs Become WMD? (4/1/2010 3:54:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen On a positive note, there is now no doubt whatever that Saddam Hussein had WMDs and the precedent has been set for a lawful invasion of any state that has so much as a hand grenade in its arsenal. E The precedent was already set with the Bush Doctrine. We only have to believe there is a threat and off we go to war. What is a WMD was defined in 1994 (assuming the bill passed as stated) - and it would seem to be anything designed to kill or which may kill more than one person at a time. Saddam had a host of such WMDs. Our misunderstanding of Bush lies in our failure to comprehend, or to pay attention to what is and what it is not a WMD as determined openly and democratically in the US in 1994. WMDs are without doubt a threat to life and Saddam's defiance of the post GW1 treaty clearly indicated he remained a threat. Ergo he was threatening us or should surely wish to threaten us, with WMDs in some form or another. The only question remaining is why coalition forces, over many months, could not find a box of hand grenades or a large gauge gun in Iraq. E

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625