Can anyone explain how Rocket Propelled Grenades have come to be classified as a WMD? Seems like definition creep to me. At least that appears to me to be the basis of the charge against the latest so called American terrorist in Syria. Correct me if I am wrong about the charges please.W
Reference? I am still going to answer the question, but if you are just going to "pump and dump", you need to give it some context. Because not everybody is as willing to actually look for references as I am. This is something that came up recently, in regards to the arrest order for Eric Harroun, an American who is fighting in the Syrian Civil War. And among the charges is a curious one, the use of a "WMD" by firing an RPG. WTF? Well, here you have to realize that there are at least 3 or 4 different definitions of what a WMD is. For example, under International Law it is normally the weapon or warhead, as well as the delivery system for them (which is why Iraq was guilty of the use of WMD in 2003, firing prohibited missiles declared by the UN as WMDs which they claim they destroyed). This definition can include things like precursors (items that can be used to create chemical weapons), delivery systems (missiles and aircraft with sprayer attachments), and a great many other things can become WMDs, depending on the history of the people using or collecting them. The problem here is that you and others are using the International definition, and not the definition of the US in regards to internal law enforcement. Since this individual is facing criminal charges in the US if he is caught, he is facing these charges under internal US law. And I quote directly from United States Code 18 USC ยง 2332a: Then when you move down to section 921 of USC, you find: So indeed, under United States Law, this is indeed a "WMD". This is not definition creep at all. And I would say that since an RPG can be used to bring down a passenger airliner, the law enforcement definition is and should be different then that when discussing war crimes or crimes against a state.
Yes, I looked up same references. If I remember probably first Google listing. My point is that the US definition allows almost anything to be classified as a WMD and as a result the concept becomes somewhat meaningless. This is typical of the US versus International law. Does the fact that the US did not sign the agreement on AntiPersonnel mines make America a terrorist organization since mines are WMD's.
Please come back when you actually have some kind of point to make, instead of babbling like this. You have no idea at all apparently about the difference between US law and International Law. And the treaty on the use of mines is not any kind of law, International or otherwise. It is not enforceable, it is simply nations that agree to do things, without any kind of enforcement or recourse if they violate it. Kind of like most of the "International Agreements" that are reached. Nobody can be prosecuted for violating it, because it is not a law of any kind. This is not the "Geneva Convention", the "Hague Protocols", or anything else of the sort. And the last time I checked, refusal to sign a treaty or agreement is not a violation of any kind of law.
Did I say the treaty on mines was a law? I also did not say that failure to sign a treaty was a violation of any kind of law. Which part of reading comprehension did you sleep through in school.? I don't think anyone said That there is never a reason to go to war. That said there are moral and immoral wars and the US recent track record is not too good. I agree with Mill's quote at least insofar as it applies to a volunteer army. Not sure it is really applicable to wars where a lot of the war is supported by paid contractors and many of the participants may or may not be in it for the money.
And yes, you are indeed simply playing war games. I thought so also, but tried to answer as best as I could. And got more word games. Enjoy your self-indulgent thread.
