|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 12:09 am
A "pants bomb" can be a WMD. If you blow up a plane with enough force to bring it crashing down in large chunks those large chunks can in turn damage or destroy buildings.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 12:57 am
Das Rabble Rouser A "pants bomb" can be a WMD. If you blow up a plane with enough force to bring it crashing down in large chunks those large chunks can in turn damage or destroy buildings. That's a cluster bomb, except the bomblets don't explode. Weapons of mass destruction are either nuclear, chemical, or biological. Even dirty bombs are stretching it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 2:29 am
Fresnel Das Rabble Rouser A "pants bomb" can be a WMD. If you blow up a plane with enough force to bring it crashing down in large chunks those large chunks can in turn damage or destroy buildings. That's a cluster bomb, except the bomblets don't explode. Weapons of mass destruction are either nuclear, chemical, or biological. Even dirty bombs are stretching it. Aren't chemical and biological weapons kind of the same thing?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 6:38 am
ArmasTermin Fresnel Das Rabble Rouser A "pants bomb" can be a WMD. If you blow up a plane with enough force to bring it crashing down in large chunks those large chunks can in turn damage or destroy buildings. That's a cluster bomb, except the bomblets don't explode. Weapons of mass destruction are either nuclear, chemical, or biological. Even dirty bombs are stretching it. Aren't chemical and biological weapons kind of the same thing? Nope. Chemical weapons are eather poisionous or cause parts of the body to stop functioning. Like how mustard gas turns your lungs to glue. Biological weapons are contagins like the bubonic plague, smallpox anthrax and other asorted nasty germs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 8:00 am
Orkronos ArmasTermin Fresnel Das Rabble Rouser A "pants bomb" can be a WMD. If you blow up a plane with enough force to bring it crashing down in large chunks those large chunks can in turn damage or destroy buildings. That's a cluster bomb, except the bomblets don't explode. Weapons of mass destruction are either nuclear, chemical, or biological. Even dirty bombs are stretching it. Aren't chemical and biological weapons kind of the same thing? Nope. Chemical weapons are eather poisionous or cause parts of the body to stop functioning. Like how mustard gas turns your lungs to glue. Biological weapons are contagins like the bubonic plague, smallpox anthrax and other asorted nasty germs. Yeah, pretty much. If it's alive, it's biological. Chemicals are chemicals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 11:59 am
Fresnel Das Rabble Rouser A "pants bomb" can be a WMD. If you blow up a plane with enough force to bring it crashing down in large chunks those large chunks can in turn damage or destroy buildings. That's a cluster bomb, except the bomblets don't explode. Weapons of mass destruction are either nuclear, chemical, or biological. Even dirty bombs are stretching it. Think about it. The name Weapon of Mass Destruction says it all. It's a weapon that causes mass destruction. If you manage to damage a plane enough to bring it crashing down in a city where a large building is severely damaged or even destroyed I would call that mass destruction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 12:12 pm
Das Rabble Rouser Fresnel Das Rabble Rouser A "pants bomb" can be a WMD. If you blow up a plane with enough force to bring it crashing down in large chunks those large chunks can in turn damage or destroy buildings. That's a cluster bomb, except the bomblets don't explode. Weapons of mass destruction are either nuclear, chemical, or biological. Even dirty bombs are stretching it. Think about it. The name Weapon of Mass Destruction says it all. It's a weapon that causes mass destruction. If you manage to damage a plane enough to bring it crashing down in a city where a large building is severely damaged or even destroyed I would call that mass destruction. And yet the Iraq war was considered a failure because we went in looking for WMDs, but found no nuclear devices whatsoever. Oh my god, US Law is retarded. Quote: (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. Sorry, but doesn't that include most FIREWORKS? Assholes. Oh, and four ounces is well under medium solid rocket booster weight for model rocketry. Oh, and if read as only a lawyer would look at it, "rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces" is an independent clause, so the law refers to literally "any explosive".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 12:21 pm
Well fireworks could be used to make grenades. razz
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 12:51 pm
Fresnel Das Rabble Rouser Fresnel Das Rabble Rouser A "pants bomb" can be a WMD. If you blow up a plane with enough force to bring it crashing down in large chunks those large chunks can in turn damage or destroy buildings. That's a cluster bomb, except the bomblets don't explode. Weapons of mass destruction are either nuclear, chemical, or biological. Even dirty bombs are stretching it. Think about it. The name Weapon of Mass Destruction says it all. It's a weapon that causes mass destruction. If you manage to damage a plane enough to bring it crashing down in a city where a large building is severely damaged or even destroyed I would call that mass destruction. And yet the Iraq war was considered a failure because we went in looking for WMDs, but found no nuclear devices whatsoever. Oh my god, US Law is retarded. Quote: (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. Sorry, but doesn't that include most FIREWORKS? Assholes. Oh, and four ounces is well under medium solid rocket booster weight for model rocketry. Oh, and if read as only a lawyer would look at it, "rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces" is an independent clause, so the law refers to literally "any explosive". WHAT?! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 3:53 pm
Fresnel Quote: (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. Sorry, but doesn't that include most FIREWORKS? Assholes. Oh, and four ounces is well under medium solid rocket booster weight for model rocketry. Oh, and if read as only a lawyer would look at it, "rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces" is an independent clause, so the law refers to literally "any explosive". got my GF (she's a law clerk) to look at that and (in the Can. system anyways) it is not an independent clause in it's self, it's "it's just listing the possible things that that clause uses" but yeah... i heard u on the retardation of US law (let alone Can. law, which i have studied a significant amount, which u would understand why if u knew anything about me xp )... it's bad... technically, some bullets would be explosive devices if they had dents or anything in then that makes them not factory spec. and don't get me started on self loaded bullets xp ***edit*** wait, so NO-WHERE in Iraq could they find some illegal fireworks? let alone SCUD's xp
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 4:27 pm
Maddness91 Fresnel Quote: (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. Sorry, but doesn't that include most FIREWORKS? Assholes. Oh, and four ounces is well under medium solid rocket booster weight for model rocketry. Oh, and if read as only a lawyer would look at it, "rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces" is an independent clause, so the law refers to literally "any explosive". got my GF (she's a law clerk) to look at that and (in the Can. system anyways) it is not an independent clause in it's self, it's "it's just listing the possible things that that clause uses" but yeah... i heard u on the retardation of US law (let alone Can. law, which i have studied a significant amount, which u would understand why if u knew anything about me xp )... it's bad... technically, some bullets would be explosive devices if they had dents or anything in then that makes them not factory spec. and don't get me started on self loaded bullets xp ***edit*** wait, so NO-WHERE in Iraq could they find some illegal fireworks? let alone SCUD's xp A smart lawyer would argue that of all those things, the rocket tied to the "propellant charge" is the only one that's propelled. You don't shoot gas, you shoot rockets. Therefore the "four ounces" is tied directly to the rocket and nothing else. You and I know that's not what it meant, but with today's juries, that'd pass easy. Oh no, they dug up ******** chemical bombs. Rusted to hell and inert from time and improper care, but they were there. The media just won't admit it. You know how we knew Saddam had them? WE GAVE THEM TO HIM. Iran-Iraq war, we backed Iraq.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 9:45 pm
Fresnel Maddness91 Fresnel Quote: (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. Sorry, but doesn't that include most FIREWORKS? Assholes. Oh, and four ounces is well under medium solid rocket booster weight for model rocketry. Oh, and if read as only a lawyer would look at it, "rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces" is an independent clause, so the law refers to literally "any explosive". got my GF (she's a law clerk) to look at that and (in the Can. system anyways) it is not an independent clause in it's self, it's "it's just listing the possible things that that clause uses" A smart lawyer would argue that of all those things, the rocket tied to the "propellant charge" is the only one that's propelled. You don't shoot gas, you shoot rockets. Therefore the "four ounces" is tied directly to the rocket and nothing else. You and I know that's not what it meant, but with today's juries, that'd pass easy. juries? maybe if the state starts useing terrible defence lawyers who don;t know how to argue back and explain s**t... but i like to keep the hope alive that the USA or Can. would use it's best to convict terrorists... even in circumstances as blatantly guilty as the underwear bomber xp Fresnel Oh no, they dug up ******** chemical bombs. Rusted to hell and inert from time and improper care, but they were there. The media just won't admit it. You know how we knew Saddam had them? WE GAVE THEM TO HIM. Iran-Iraq war, we backed Iraq. yeah that was a 1/2 joke 1/2 social commentary... don't worry about it...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 09, 2010 4:10 am
Maddness91 Fresnel Maddness91 Fresnel Quote: (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. Sorry, but doesn't that include most FIREWORKS? Assholes. Oh, and four ounces is well under medium solid rocket booster weight for model rocketry. Oh, and if read as only a lawyer would look at it, "rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces" is an independent clause, so the law refers to literally "any explosive". got my GF (she's a law clerk) to look at that and (in the Can. system anyways) it is not an independent clause in it's self, it's "it's just listing the possible things that that clause uses" A smart lawyer would argue that of all those things, the rocket tied to the "propellant charge" is the only one that's propelled. You don't shoot gas, you shoot rockets. Therefore the "four ounces" is tied directly to the rocket and nothing else. You and I know that's not what it meant, but with today's juries, that'd pass easy. juries? maybe if the state starts useing terrible defence lawyers who don;t know how to argue back and explain s**t... but i like to keep the hope alive that the USA or Can. would use it's best to convict terrorists... even in circumstances as blatantly guilty as the underwear bomber xp Sorry, I'm seeing the defense lawyer losing no matter how hard he tries. You've got a simple line of bullshit that makes PERFECT sense, or the truth, which is complicated and difficult to understand, and uses definitions you never heard before. The truth would sound like bullshit, and the bullshit would stand.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
