"Can jeff explain how a handmade hand grenade is a WMD
#7 | Posted by truthhurts"

Here you go:

And BellRinger is spot on with the title: "Why do media consistently obfuscate terrorist attacks." The media made it sound like the attack was against Muslims, even though it was perpetrated by Muslims against others.

And a photograph of the grenade to help TruthHurts understand why a grenade is a WMD. Those nuts and bolts are shrapnel, intended to kill many.

Yet the US and Israel are using WMDs every day on Iran and no one says anything.
#12 | Posted by REDIAL

Warfare is a different context (with different rules than what the terrorists here did, similar to the Muslim terrorist Boston Marathon bombers using pressure cookers to kill a few and and maim over 250). But even if they were the same guidelines, I'm pretty sure I hear plenty of people saying much regarding US/Israel use of WMDs.

Too bad many of the complainers didn't put those entirely predictable concerns into action a little over a year a ago when it actually would have mattered during the election.

Jill Stein 2028!

> Warfare is a different context

[Bullsheet].
#14 | Posted by REDIAL

You don't think firing a mortar at someone invading your nation to slaughter your people is different from chucking that same mortar into a civilian crowd gathered to watch a marathon?

Well I certainly won't be able to convince you otherwise.

But as I said, there is no shortage of people taking issue with US/Israel's use of WMDs. But almost no report on these Muslims who did so at Gracie Mansion. Which was BellRinger's point.

So we agree they are using WMDs in Iran. Good.
#18 | Posted by REDIAL

The weapons being used would be WMD under the USC criminal (civilian) code cited in #19. Those aren't the same definitions used for armed conflict, though. You can read more about it and the varying meanings here:

Ok... a handheld gunpowder bomb with some sheet metal screws stuck to it is a WMD, but a 2,000 pound aerial bomb isn't. Good to know.
#21 | Posted by REDIAL

Depending on the context, yes. Not really that complicated, despite your best attempts to misunderstand.

Civilians can be punished under our laws for using devices that combatants in armed combat (on either side) will not be punished for using.

How about the context where the imbecile dropping the aerial bombs say's there isn't a war?
#27 | Posted by REDIAL

No idea since I haven't looked into it. But given the number of times our soldiers have killed and maimed during "not wars" with zero criminal or civil ramifications, I'm going to hazard "not a WMD."