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?
Bookmarks