weapons of mass destruction

srijantje · 04-23-2013, 06:15 AM

what constitutes as a weapon of mass destruction?
were the oklahoma bomber and other white trash criminals accused of using weapons of mass destruction?or do you have to be a muslim to get that distinction?
your opinion please

wildcard · 04-23-2013, 09:35 AM

Don't be fucking ludicrous.

A weapon of mass destruction is a 'weapon dat can do a lot o' destruction' . . . seriously man, everything isn't about Muslim v. Christian or brown v. white . . .

srijantje · 04-23-2013, 11:12 AM

is an automatic rifle a weapon of mass destruction?as we saw in recent school shootings,they did a lot of destruction

velvetfog · 04-23-2013, 11:21 AM

According to the Americans, a bomb is a weapon off mass destruction, since it will indiscriminately kill those in the vicinity.
By that logic, throwing a hand grenade into a city bus would qualify as a weapon of mass destruction.

But it appears that the explosive missiles that the American military fire from drones into Afghan and Pakistani wedding parties,
are not considered weapons of mass destruction.
Go figure.

sporkium · 04-23-2013, 12:09 PM

perhaps if they didn't allow all their wedding guests to carry fully automatic weapons and rocket propelled grenade launchers... the drones wouldn't fire on them. just a thought.

as for bombs being placed on the ground and being filled with projectiles designed to cause massive injuries... not kill... well... who cares if it's a wmd or not.

wildcard · 04-23-2013, 01:26 PM

Exactly. Even raising the discussion of whether to consider something a WMD is futile.

Whether you kill someone (or millions) with a rock (or a bunch of rocks) or a nuclear weapon is moot.

Stop trying to make an International problem into a platform for race/national prejudice war-- that is the biggest WMD in existence.

System Folder · 04-23-2013, 07:39 PM

Even a lowly pen is a weapon of mass destruction, because it could be used to sign a document that causes World War III.

srijantje · 04-23-2013, 08:19 PM

well,it's just that to my knowledge it's the first time the authorities have used the term weapons of mass destruction in a case like this.

srijantje · 04-23-2013, 08:22 PM

(04-23-2013, 12:09 PM)sporkium Wrote: perhaps if they didn't allow all their wedding guests to carry fully automatic weapons and rocket propelled grenade launchers... the drones wouldn't fire on them. just a thought.

as for bombs being placed on the ground and being filled with projectiles designed to cause massive injuries... not kill... well... who cares if it's a wmd or not.

women and children don't carry rocket launchers around.

as for the bomb part you're exactly right

sporkium · 04-23-2013, 09:44 PM

(04-23-2013, 08:22 PM)srijantje Wrote: women and children don't carry rocket launchers around.

lies.

[Image: FL_pal-girls-islamic-jihad-w-guns.jpg]

[Image: tameside-muslim-woman-olympic-gun-practice-.jpg]

but back to the op:

so you have an issue with referring to the bombs in boston as weapons of mass destruction... cool story. i mean, i get that you would like to point out that when the federal building in oklahoma was bombed, it wasn't called a wmd (since the catch phrase wasn't being used at that time).

but, maybe you are right and we are being too stern on that surviving kid that bombed the marathon by charging him with using a wmd... Rolleyes