Weapons of 'mass destruction"? Ever notice how the Libs call EVERYTHING that.

[tank_monkey]

Note how the liberals and the media insist on calling the makeshift bombs (and assault rifles to that matter) as "Weapons of Mass Destruction". Well if that were the case, then George W. Bush found "WMDs" the moment we set foot in Iraq now.... but then consistency has never been a hallmark of the left.

What bothers me now is the official charge of "conspiring to use weapon of mass destruction against persons and property in U.S. resulting in death". Now if Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and as yet unknown buddies had access to a 'nuke' then this would make sense. But they did not.

Now to those of us who are veterans, I myself do NOT consider (a) my duty rifle (b) a hand grenade or (c) a satchel charge to be 'weapons of mass destruction'. But these guys pretty much had access to only stuff that a squad would have access to. I don't think any squad has access to anything that is considered a weapon of mass destruction (unless you count calling in an air strike). I doubt anyone else who has served in a military capacity (or not) would consider any of the weapons/devices to be WMDs either. IEDs yes, WMDs no.

I am not comfortable with the casual redefinition of terms, especially ones used for military or legal purposes.

Thoughts?

[AKTexas]

I do not know where I heard it but the first thing to do to control a population is manipulate the language.

[1 Patriot-of-many]

According to the left words are weapons of mass destruction when they're words they don't like that is.

[imanaknut]

It's funny in a sad way that in the middle east they are improvised explosive devices, or IEDs. Yet when the same item is used on American soil, they are those evil weapons of mass destruction.

Gotta love "non-biased" reporting.

[tank_monkey]

Gotta love "non-biased" reporting.

It's not the media. The US Attorney for Massachusetts’ office is charging him with "conspiring to use weapon of mass destruction against persons and property in U.S. resulting in death". Apparently that is the quote from the U.S. Attorney's office, so that is the CHARGE they are going to go with. It's WORSE when it's a government attorney and not a douchebag journalist that's making that statement....

[El Jefe]

I'm surprised they didn't go with sporting event violence.

[FunkyPertwee]

I'm surprised they didn't go with sporting event violence.

Yeah, me too.

I was actually stunned when I heard the word 'terrorist' come out of the mouth Our Dear Leader during his live press conference.

[El Jefe]

Yeah, me too.

I was actually stunned when I heard the word 'terrorist' come out of the mouth Our Dear Leader during his live press conference.

Before he knew it was a muzzy.

[1 Patriot-of-many]

Before he knew it was a muzzy.

Good point. Ft. Hood is still workplace violence with the perpetrator yelling ALLAH AKBAR.....

[El Jefe]

Good point. Ft. Hood is still workplace violence with the perpetrator yelling ALLAH AKBAR.....

Yep. Why is that POS still alive?

[nfa1934]

WMDs are nuclear, biological, or chemical. Nothing else. Doublespeak is a common tool for those who don't understand "1984" was a warning, not a guide.

[NAPOTS]

WMDs are nuclear, biological, or chemical. Nothing else. Doublespeak is a common tool for those who don't understand "1984" was a warning, not a guide.

I caught that too. The charge doesn't seem to make any sense.

And a conspiracy charge? Isn't the burden of proof a lot higher on a conspiracy charge? Don't they have video of the guy planting the bomb. I'm sure they found evidence in his apartment, probably finger prints on the bomb parts, probably an electronic paper trail a mile long AND the guy was wounded in a gunfight with the police. So why beat around the bush with a conspiracy charge? Shouldn't it be at least 3 counts of 1st degree murder, several hundred if not thousand counts of attempted murder, and malice with great bodily harm?

[was_peacemaker]

According to a lib...my Bowie is a "weapon of mass destruction"! LOL