Conspiracy Theory

[woolfy42]

I read recently that the Global Elite like to send out cynical messages about what's really going on. After the Boston bombing I heard a US news report that said the remaining bomber had been charged with "conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction"! Nobody I have spoken to either heard it or thought it was strange, but I do! That has to be someone taking the piss out of the non-existent weapons that led to the invasion of Iraq.

[LazyGun]

I heard it and thought it a bit of a reach. It was reported in the media at the time.

Here is a Guardian report discussing it.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/22/boston-bomb-suspect-dzhokhar-tsarnaev-charged

I suppose, technically speaking, an improvised explosive device could be termed a weapon of mass destruction, but that is certainly not the common understanding. The use of the term appears to have become very politicized, especially in the US. Kind of fits with the whole Homeland Security Anti-Terror thing they have going on over there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon_of_mass_destruction#United_States_politics

[woolfy42]

Thanks very much - I thought I was the only person to notice it. It just seemed to fit nicely with a mocking Elite/Government who create these disasters in order to increase fear at home!

[naomi24]

That was reported on our news too. I don't see any conspiracy theory there. Any weapon designed to kill an indeterminate number of people could legitimately be deemed 'a weapon of mass destruction'.

[LazyGun]

To be clear - I do not think this is a conspiracy. I do however think that using the term Weapon of Mass Destruction for improvised explosive devices, whilst being technically correct, is not the common understanding of the what the term means. So it fits the wthin the US legally defined parameters of what constitutes a WMD, but not necessarily within the common public perception.

Most people, seeing WMD, have becomes accustomed to thinking in terms of a weapon involving chemical weapons, or biological toxins, or nuclear devices.

[naomi24]

LG, I agree. It is not the common understanding.

[woolfy42]

'Conspiracy' may not be the right word and I'm not sure 'spin' is either. However, as WMD (chemical or nuclear weapons) were not found in Iraq and were a deliberate invention, the redefinition of the term WMD to include something like a hand grenade would seem logical. I am sure we will hear that ridiculous use of the word again soon just to reinforce the new definition. In '1984' the past was actually re-written, but here, a completely devalued definition of the term WMD will mean that a historical view of those events in a future time might begin to look quite different from what I believe actually happened. The term IED is a euphemism for something very nasty that kills a small number on people, and use to be called a mine, an anti-personnel device or more simply a bomb, and so I do not agree with naomi24 that 'Any weapon designed to kill an indeterminate number of people could legitimately be deemed 'a weapon of mass destruction'. This was a calculated political re-definition of the term WMD.

[Clanad]

This, from Time Magazine , here in the U.S.: "...It turns out that federal law defines “weapon of mass destruction” in extremely broad terms. The relevant statutes define almost any significant explosive device as a WMD. That specifically includes bombs, grenades, mines, and small rockets and missiles. The pressure-cooker bombs planted at the Boston marathon and the explosives hurled at police on Thursday night would almost certainly qualify.

Needless to say, the law also covers weapons more commonly considered to be WMD, including “any weapon involving a biological agent, toxin, or vector” and any weapon “designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life.” (More here on what qualifies as an agent, toxin or vector.) But there is no indication that the Tsarnaevs had access to such materials..."

Additionally: "...The federal government has executed just three people since 2001. Among them was Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh, who was also charged with use of a weapon of mass destruction and who was put to death by lethal injection on June 11, 2001, at a federal prison in Terre Haute, Ind..."

[woolfy42]

Thank you very much, Clanad, for your very comprehensive answer.

I notice that in Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon_of_mass_destruction) it makes mention in 'Evolution of its use 'that 'This fear reached a crescendo with the 2002 Iraq disarmament crisis and the alleged existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq that became the primary justification for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. However, no WMD were found in Iraq.[a] Because of its prolific use during this period, the American Dialect Society voted "weapons of mass destruction" (and its abbreviation, "WMD") the word of the year in 2002,[10] and in 2003 Lake Superior State University added WMD to its list of terms banished for "Mis-use, Over-use and General Uselessness".[11]

It does still seem to me that if you have the term IED you do not need to use WMD for the same thing. I have followed your evidence but can't find when this new usage first appeared. It must be post 2003 if the Lake Superior University thought it was mis-used in 2003!

I still find the retro-definition of a term that has become sensitive as very suspicious. Perhaps its a silly idea to suggest that by slowly changing the definition of a word one might help to justify an illegal war but it stuck out like a sore thumb to me.

[naomi24]

//I have followed your [Clanad’s] evidence but can't find when this new usage first appeared. It must be post 2003//

I don’t know when it was first used, but it was certainly in use in 1995.

This…..

//On August 10, 1995, McVeigh was indicted on 11 federal counts, including conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction, use of a weapon of mass destruction, destruction by explosives and eight counts of first-degree murder.//

…. from here:

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

No conspiracy.

[woolfy42]

Thanks naomi24, I didn't realise they had used that term back in the 90's.

I can only say that the McVeigh bomb was very large (the aim was to take down a large building) and the use of the term was then used in 2003 for Iraq.

However, all the US and UK soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan from 2003 until now have been killed by IED's and yet the term WMD suddenly appeared instead of IED in Boston.

Does a WMD kill or injure 50 rather than 49 people, or is an IED only used in a war zone? For me, this seems to boil down to the definition of the terms and I still see a change of usage, and it would not have been by accident.