|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 23 2013 @ 05:15 AM EDT |
See Pop
ehat for the details. Suffice it to say "Weapon of Mass Destruction" is now
defined in US law as including rather small quantities of explosive or
incendiary. Drop a flaming sambuca shot and it could be argued to be a 'missile
having an incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce' and thus a Weapon of
Mass Destruction.
Anyone know when this definition became law? It does
seem a much lower bar the the NBC level people are familiar with.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 23 2013 @ 07:26 AM EDT |
The first time I heard about the use of wmd in this context
I thought along the line of, to put it mildly; "Oh boy, here we go
again"
Unfortunately there are people that use
Words of Much Delusion and do not care to be out of
touch with reality.
As long as they get their way.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, April 23 2013 @ 10:24 AM EDT |
Guys, this is chasing your own tail. The law
itself defines its meaning.
You know how frustrating it is when the courts
use a regular dictionary to define a tech
word? That's what you are doing here, using
the wrong dictionary, namely what you have in
your minds, with this law. It is a term of
art, used in connection here with the law
itself, which defines it.
Basically the law, written after 9/11, says
if you are using a bomb, let's say, with the
intent and the result that a lot of people
are hurt or killed, you qualify.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|