Re: The Bigger, Badder, Even More Serious Thread [3]

[Norc]

can i just say, don't jump to conclusions? remember ABB (22.july) poeple imidiately thought islam-terror and all that, one person didn't get help and so on and so on, when it was discovered it was an extremist on the other side of the scale.. srsly. it could also be (not certain, ofc not) someone dissagreeing with these new law stuff about gun politic. i am just saying. don't jump to conclusions.

also i think one good reason why this is covered more than afganistan/Iran/syria and so forth, is because it's closer. i think the reason is as simple as that. also, when fed with constant information about brutal attacks and death, people tend to think of it as "normal" well, not normal, but it becomes part of their day and it stops being horrific and surprising and disturbing, because people are used to it. and you don't want that. deaths and terror becomes statistics and numbers.

i understood that fully when in grade ten i was on a class trip through europe visiting different concentration camps and places linked to the second world war. it was so gruesome that my head couldn't really comprehend what had actually happened, but when i got the individual stories, and realised it was millions of those, it hit me. maybe news coverage should focus more on the people and their stories? but again, why? will the general public be of any help? will there be any change?

remember when war was first being broadcast, the vietnam war, it got such a huge responce, the hippie movement, huge demonstrations, but the vietnam war? it's not bigger or more horrible than all the wars that followed, i'de say what has followed might even be worse (i don't have statistics, so i can't say anything about that, but let's just agree, every war is aweful, no matter how many died) but did they get the same responce? no, it died away, can you still see people protesting against war? terror? everyone has an opinion, but it's more of a blur now. it's more political, it's about money, power, not loosing face etc.etc, but the general public? why aren't we protesting like the hippie movement? because we're used to it now. just like all those kids growing up with war, except we're miles away and doesn't therefor understand it fully. Then something like this happens and it comes to close, we realise how brutal it is, while people living in war and terror constantly are always aware of how brutal the world is.

[Norc]

and those facebook pictures "addressing the subject", are dumb as balls. they show some of it, but it isn't thought trhough and i want to punch people in the face when i see they've shared/liked stuff like that. it's not even their opinion! well, maybe it is, but it's so dumb, they see one picture and just like "that looks logical"---> like
it makes no sense, come up with your own fucking ideas,use your brain, learn about the freaking case, see both sides, reflect goddammit!

rant over.

((and those pictures are mostly spam, just after your ip-address or whatever, they just want people to like it, it's a trick, never click that fuck shit, only old people who hasn't grown up with internet does such stupid facebook mistakes (Like spamming and thinking it's a dieary or a family photoalbum) and those too young who's lied about their age and think they understand the world and the internet, when in fact, nobody does, but you learn more, and i know enough about the internet to not get virus, downloading stupid games to facebook or other apps, and not liking those stupid ass pictures "like if you agree, ignore if you're heartless". up my ass, i don't have to like anything on face to prove a point, just fucking ask me or yourself.

do i hate on a person with downs?
no.
does anyone hate on a person with downs?
probably.
would they share it on facebook?
probably not.
should a click like?
well, it doesn't matter anyway, cause anuone of this 4K people liking it could be lying or just doesn't know. maybe they've never met a person with downs, they're just stupid enough that they have to prove it.
everyone in the world will click like.
then why bother
ignore
no one will see that you did.

GOD THIS WHOLE SUBJECT IS MAKING ME SO CRABBIT!

[Eldorion]

Thank you, Norc. Well said.

[Ally]

A couple of nukes dropped in the right place could solve a few problems,
or is that going to far ? Don't think this shit is going to stop in my lifetime.

WTF

Sooner or later there going to get there hands on something thats going to kill millions, its going
to be a case of us or them. Sadly

Stop being so pc chris

[Norc]

Thank you, Norc. Well said.

thank you.

[Mrs Figg]

I suppose terrible though it is, that when bombs are dropped on innocents in say Syria or Afganistan I think that those countries are war zones and in the case of some countries have been for decades, its like in Northern Ireland, where attacks and murders happened daily I got kind of numb to the magnitude of it because the whole area was at war with itself. Whereas a peaceful Marathon in a sunny 'normal street suddenly turning into a place of blood and flying body parts, is somehow shocking and frightening because it could happen to anyone going about their peaceful normal lives far far away from war zones. The press are just part of the information sharing thing like social networking, we should show it on tv, to make people aware of danger, to watch if there is someone acting weirdly or leaving packages, we need to be more careful and observant to protect ourselves from nutters.

[chris63]

Sorry about the nuke bit, but i just watched this vid and it made me as mad as hell.



Libya: Cementary of british war victims destroyed by Muslim Mob

[Pettytyrant101]

Just caught the evening news and I see the Boston bomber has been charged with using a WMD.

WTF?!

Is this just a trumped up charge to make sure he gets the death penalty?
Because the Uk went to war in Iraq on the basis of WMD- and we werent looking for a home made explosive- hell by that definition Iraq is awash with WMD- and probably so is my kitchen if I know what to mix.

So the IRA used WMD?
Road side bombs in Afghanistan are now WMD?

Can someone explain this?

The bombing was a terrible act of cowardice and terrorism and he deserves if guilty to be punished according to the law for it- but to make out he was using WMD's seem to undermine the whole thing and make it seem farcical to me as well as raising worrying questions about US justice if they are willing to completely redefine recognized terms to mean something different just to make sure they can get a death penalty.

[Eldorion]

It fits the U.S. civilian legal definition of "weapons of mass destruction", though obviously the definition in both military and political discourse is very different. I'm not familiar with the history of the term but it's been that way for at least the past several years.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2332a

Prosecutors could call for the death penalty, but that is by no means restricted to people who use WMDs, regardless of the definition.

[Pettytyrant101]

Just seems so ridiculous- a WMD is a nuclear or bilogical weapon capable of killingv ast numbers, that's why its called mass destruction-(2 people is tragic, but it aint mass destruction!)

According to the BBC news I saw by charging him with this it ensures he faces the Death Penalty if guilty, so presumably if they hadnt used a WMD charge he wouldnt have been guaranteed death as a punishment- which is why it struck me as a bit of bending of terms to get a desired outcome.

That document uses the term but doesnt say when the term passed into law with ths meaning- wasnt a Bush idea was it from the period of his axis of evil nonsense?

[Eldorion]

I'm a little out of my depth here, but my understanding from the document is that since people died from a WMD attack he can be given the death penalty if convicted, but not that it's automatic. There's a good chance he will, but they might send him to bomber's row in federal supermax instead. That prison currently houses the WTC '93 bomber, the Unabomber, Terry Nichols from the OKC bombing -- all of whom were responsible for more deaths Tsarnaev -- along with the failed shoe, underwear, and Times Square bombers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADX_Florence

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1555145-2,00.html

Anyway, I don't think it makes sense to use such a common term so differently, but law has its own language.

[Mrs Figg]

They were potentially weapons of mass destruction, it was only by mere chance that more people were not killed, I am sure the potential was for mass destruction, so I dont see the problem with the term myself.

[Pettytyrant101]

Because previously the term was used to justify war against a soveriegn state based on it having WMD- that were either nuclear or chemical and capable of real mass destruction on a signficant scale- you'd need a hell of a big pressure cooker to equal a nuke!

The IRA didnt use WMD- they used bombs made of semtex and thats we called them.
The Taliban dont use WMD they use road side home made bombs and cause at least as much destruction.
There are bombings in markets and the like most weeks still in Iraq and we dont call those WMD either.

Just seems odd and inappropriate to me, and to downgrade the meaning, to refer to a home made explosive as a WMD. Seems like hyperbole to me.

[Mrs Figg]

but this device was on home soil, not in some war zone thousands of miles away, I am sure a deterent is implied in the use of WMD. Its the gvt playing hard ball with any future terrorists, its a message to them.

[Pettytyrant101]

Just sounds silly to me- usng the same term to describe a homemade bomb and a nuke.

SO what does N Korea and Iran have?- SDFMWMD? (Superdooper F***ing Massive Weapon of Mass destruction)

If I was being really cynical I would say the reason a bomb going off in Iraq is a bomb and one going off in America is a WMD is they are not Americans, so not as important obviously.

[Mrs Figg]

I still dont get the problem with the term

[Pettytyrant101]

Because it sounds like hyberbole- the rest of the world endures these atrocities from time to timeand calls them bombings- it happens to America its got to be so much more important and bigger than that- so they've not had a bombing, they've been attacked by WMD!

I dont like words being misused for what seems like political and/or propoganda purposes.

Words are dangerous and important, I am always uncomfortable when Governments play fast and loose with them.

[Eldorion]

The only people using the phrase in that way is the court system though, which has a lot of words to itself. The rest of America is perfectly clear on the difference between a WMD (in the conventional definition) and a pipe bomb. Even the media.

[Pettytyrant101]

In which case why call it a WMD at all? If here is no propoganda or other motivation?
Why not call it what it is and everyone calls it- a homemade explosive device.

[Eldorion]

If I knew I would have said so earlier; as it is I agree with you that the use of the phrase doesn't make sense but I think you're making a bigger deal out of it than it deserves. The WMD charge does not carry an automatic death penalty and the specific type of charge filed has no relevance whatsoever to public perception of the attacks, which is pretty well entrenched by now.

[Pettytyrant101]

Doesnt stop such a blatant misuse of a phrase from annoying the crap out of me and making me crabbit- it wasnt a WMD and shouldnt be called one.
Its almost like its designed to further scare people and make them feel less safe on subconciuos level by using that phrase.
America is not under attack from WMD's.

And as I mentioned earlier with similar attacks having occured (and still occuring) all round the world and commonly in some countries- it almost seems to belittle those- 'oh those bombs that blew up them were bombs, but we are Americans so we were attacked by a WMD'- it doesnt make America look good- as if becuase i happened to American and Americans lost their lives it needs a worse name than when the same sort of device blows up some Iraqs.

[Eldorion]

The terminology of the US civilian justice system has nothing to do with bombings in Iraq or, for that matter, any country other than the United States. That's outside their jurisdiction (though they could try to get involved if Americans were among the victims).

[Pettytyrant101]

It does when you report round the world you have been attacked by WMD when everyone can see it was ahomeade bomb- looks kind of stupid.

How do you think it seems to poeple in countries where these happen often to hear the one time it happens in the US its suddenly a WMD attack!

[Eldorion]

Dude, the legal system has a lot of strange uses of words that are different from the ordinary usage. If you have a knife and threaten to stab someone, that's assault, but if you actually injure them, then it's battery. If you break into someone's house at night and steal their TV, it's burglary, but if you do the exact same thing during the day, it's housebreaking. Until recently, a sexual assault only qualified for the label of "rape" if it involved a penis forcibly entering a vagina, although this had no bearing on sentencing guidelines. None of this prevents people from using or understanding the common definitions of these words.

I'm not a fan of confusing legal jargon and I think it would be better for everyone, but especially the accused, if the language used in charges reflected ordinary speech more closely (and in the case of rape this has been changed), but I don't think there's any nefarious purpose to it.

[Pettytyrant101]

It wouldnt be so bad Eldo if it was consistent- but I have never heard of another bombing referred to as a WMD attack- never.
So why this one? That doesnt seem odd to you?
These sort of attacks happen every day somwhere- and not one of them is called a WMD attack in the press- except the one attack in America.

Maybe I am wrong, maybe every time US media reports on such bombings round the world they always call them all WMD attacks- but if so I seem to have missed those reports.