Monday, March 29, 2010

I think Tam was one of the people talking about the odd definition now

of this:
The arrests followed a federal grand jury indictment handed down in Detroit charging them with seditious conspiracy, attempted use of weapons of mass destruction, and possessing a firearm during a crime of violence.

The weapons of mass destruction charge referred to improvised explosive devices with projectiles, the indictment said
Ok, I have a question: if groups like this, or some general nut with a pipe bomb can be charged with having WMD, can someone explain why a terrorist setting off a bomb, or captured with one, isn't charged with the same thing? Why Hamas and Hezballah shooting rockets into Israel isn't classed as palistinians using WMD?

And if they can't, why the bleep is the Justice Department & Co. spreading bullshit this way?

1 comment:

Phelps said...

Yeah, by this definition, Iraq was one big WMD.