Yesterday on NPR, I heard the discussion about the would-be Christmas airline bomber as having attempted to use a weapon of mass destruction.
Really? Should we really be calling the Christmas airline bomber an attempted use of Weapon of Mass Destruction? He burning his lap! Seriously?
If we use that term to describe the attempted downing of an aircraft then isn’t every anti-ship cruise missile a WMD? There can be hundreds to thousands of people on ships. Or what about a 2000 lbs bomb that we drop all the time? How about a grenade? If he stabbed the pilots and brought the plane down would that be a WMD? Will will have to have an international armistice treaty on box cutters!
I think a more honest term would “attempted mass murder.” How about we save WMD for the big stuff like nukes and not water down our own language.
Great thoughts throughout. Sorry for such a simple question, but what theme is this?
Thanks
Comment by Goose — January 9, 2010 @ 8:45 pm |
I use Rubric and I modified the picture with my own creation.
Comment by iknowkeith — January 12, 2010 @ 5:08 pm |
I fully agree. I would add that on the other end of the spectrum spinning jazz like “the BVD bomber” and “Mr. Hot Pats” is an equal disservice to all.
Comment by Alfie — January 10, 2010 @ 9:40 am |