Weapons of Mass Destruction

[ok doser]

This had slipped under my radar. This is the new definition of WMD that the FBI is using.

From Wiki:

Within U.S. civil defense organizations, the category is now Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and Explosive (CBRNE), which defines WMD as: (1) Any explosive, incendiary, poison gas, bomb, grenade, or rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces [113 g], missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce [7 g], or mine or device similar to the above. (2) Poison gas. (3) Any weapon involving a disease organism. (4) Any weapon that is designed to release radiation at a level dangerous to human life.[38]

Reporting on the riots last year in Portland and in many other cities across the country detailed use by the rioters of commercial fireworks and molotov cocktails, and yet I don't remember a single instance of people arrested (and often released uncharged) - I don't remember any of those people being charged with terrorist offenses - I don't remember any of them being charged with having used WMD's.

What I do remember is people like Kamala Harris, leading fundraising efforts to bail them out and get them back on the streets so they could continue terrorizing the cities they were targeting. I'm unclear why this doesn't make Kamala Harris an accessory to domestic terrorism and an accesory of the use of WMD's against the American citizenry.

Seems like that might be an impeachable offense.

 

[Trump Gurl]

The Left always waters down things until they have no meaning at all.
I read an old definition from the Cold War days. A WMD was either a nuclear weapon, a biological weapon, or a chemical weapon. That is mass destruction. The reason for that was so that we could say, in the event of an attack on the west by a WMD, we would respond with WMD's automatically.

This definition is just plain stupid. A grenade? Seriously? That is "Mass" destruction? Who knew that Army and Marine's carried WMD's on their belts for years right?

That's what happens when you let Liberals into places where only grownups should be.

 

[ok doser]

The Left always waters down things until they have no meaning at all.
I read an old definition from the Cold War days. A WMD was either a nuclear weapon, a biological weapon, or a chemical weapon. That is mass destruction. The reason for that was so that we could say, in the event of an attack on the west by a WMD, we would respond with WMD's automatically.

This definition is just plain stupid. A grenade? Seriously? That is "Mass" destruction? ho knew that Army and Marine's carried WMD's on their belts for years right?

That's what happens when you let Liberals into places where only grownups should be.

One of the things that this watered down definition does is undercuts the left's argument that Saddam Hussein didn't have WMD's and that Bush was unjustified in starting the Iraq war.

 

[Trump Gurl]

One of the things that this watered down definition does is undercuts the left's argument that Saddam Hussein didn't have WMD's and that Bush was unjustified in starting the Iraq war.

Hah! That is very good.

But I am sure that it also allows the Left to charge militia groups with some sort of federal crime that they really shouldn't be charged with, regarding WMD's.

 

[Eric h]

One of the things that this watered down definition does is undercuts the left's argument that Saddam Hussein didn't have WMD's and that Bush was unjustified in starting the Iraq war.

Mr Bush was right to be afraid of grenades, they are WMD's.

 

[Trump Gurl]

Mr Bush was right to be afraid of grenades, they are WMD's.

Do you even understand this conversation?

 

[Eric h]

Do you even understand this conversation?

Yes, but I am not sure that you do. If Mr Bush was truthfully looking for WMD's, he should have looked in his own backyard first; that's where the real ones are.

One of the things that this watered down definition does is undercuts the left's argument that Saddam Hussein didn't have WMD's and that Bush was unjustified in starting the Iraq war.

As you imply, Mr Bush can justify the Iraq invasion because they found watered down WMD's.

 

[ok doser]

NOT charged with WMD's

 

[Gary K]

Mr Bush was right to be afraid of grenades, they are WMD's.

LOL. That is funny. It used to be the definition of WMD's was weapons that caused mass casualties. Weapons like nuclear bombs, chemical weapons, biological weapons, etc... that killed indiscriminately and in large numbers, such as the thousands or millions. It was that way through the 1970s and at least part way through the 1980s.

A grenade cannot fit that description. It's ludicrous to say a grenade is a weapon of mass destruction. It's also ludicrous to call a missile/rocket with a 1/4 pound of propellant a WMD. There are rocket hobbyists who make rockets with far more than 4 ounces of propellants. If these things are WMDs than so are private planes, any artillery shell, any defensive missile/rocket, and all forms of dynamite used by road builders, construction workers, etc.... All these new definitions are nothing more than a way to criminalize whole new groups of people. It's nothing more than more destruction of liberty and the rights of the people.

 

[marke]

This had slipped under my radar. This is the new definition of WMD that the FBI is using.

From Wiki:

Within U.S. civil defense organizations, the category is now Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and Explosive (CBRNE), which defines WMD as:

Reporting on the riots last year in Portland and in many other cities across the country detailed use by the rioters of commercial fireworks and molotov cocktails, and yet I don't remember a single instance of people arrested (and often released uncharged) - I don't remember any of those people being charged with terrorist offenses - I don't remember any of them being charged with having used WMD's.

What I do remember is people like Kamala Harris, leading fundraising efforts to bail them out and get them back on the streets so they could continue terrorizing the cities they were targeting. I'm unclear why this doesn't make Kamala Harris an accessory to domestic terrorism and an accesory of the use of WMD's against the American citizenry.

Seems like that might be an impeachable offense.

Blindered idiots on the left like the vengeful Garland gibbon don't see any problem with leftist treason, sedition, violence, and murder, but they somehow see all sorts of widespread conservative, white and Christian terrorism which they feel must be tracked down and crushed like a bug before it destroys their godless Marxist democrat party.

 

[marke]

The Left always waters down things until they have no meaning at all.
I read an old definition from the Cold War days. A WMD was either a nuclear weapon, a biological weapon, or a chemical weapon. That is mass destruction. The reason for that was so that we could say, in the event of an attack on the west by a WMD, we would respond with WMD's automatically.

This definition is just plain stupid. A grenade? Seriously? That is "Mass" destruction? Who knew that Army and Marine's carried WMD's on their belts for years right?

That's what happens when you let Liberals into places where only grownups should be.

Bush may have been misled by congressional intelligence members, including Senator Hillary Clinton, who claimed Iraq was harboring WMDs, and Bush may have been prematurely motivated to attack Iraq after Congress passed a war resolution against Iraq in 2002.

 

[marke]

NOT charged with WMD's

No big deal. Biden's justice department will not try to jail this guy for long, if at all, even though they are trying to jail Trump supporters under long prison terms for doing less damage in public demonstrations against democrat voter fraud.

 

[ok doser]

LOL. That is funny. It used to be the definition of WMD's was weapons that caused mass casualties. Weapons like nuclear bombs, chemical weapons, biological weapons, etc... that killed indiscriminately and in large numbers, such as the thousands or millions. It was that way through the 1970s and at least part way through the 1980s.

A grenade cannot fit that description. It's ludicrous to say a grenade is a weapon of mass destruction. It's also ludicrous to call a missile/rocket with a 1/4 pound of propellant a WMD. There are rocket hobbyists who make rockets with far more than 4 ounces of propellants. If these things are WMDs than so are private planes, any artillery shell, any defensive missile/rocket, and all forms of dynamite used by road builders, construction workers, etc.... All these new definitions are nothing more than a way to criminalize whole new groups of people. It's nothing more than more destruction of liberty and the rights of the people.

I just filled my car's gas tank with gasoline yesterday effectively making my car a WMD

 

[marke]

I just filled my car's gas tank with gasoline yesterday effectively making my car a WMD

And, like tens of millions of Americans, you paid 50% more for gas under Green New Deal, Skyrocketing Tax, and Oil and Gas Eliminating Socialist Biden than you did under Make America Great Again Trump.

 

[TomO]

 

[Trump Gurl]

View attachment 970