"The overused euphemism "weapons of mass destruction" is just the latest buzzword utilized for maximum fear-mongering effect and therefore maximum political gain. Just like how the word "terrorist" is being applied to any and every thing."I disagree. The problem is that these terms weren't used enough in the past. WMD is simply a more accurate way of terming exactly what such weapons are, be they cobalt bombs, nukes or chemical coctails. They were made for the maximum amount of distruction. The biggest impact - no pun intended.
"Terrorist" has also been used far too infrequently in the past, in favor of PC terms like "activist" and "freedom fighter", thus giving terrorists a patina of moral superiority and blurring the meanings of those words to the point that terrorists became synonomous with the type of people who stage sit-ins and carry signs, without causing loss of life. That blurring was dangerous, and 9/11 was only the latest proof.
If you can't handle the brutal truth of the terms "WMD" and "terrorist", that is your problem. Personally, I prefer those non-PC descriptions in favor of ACCURACY.
You are reading my comments out of context. My statements are made in relation to Hatteras' post #3. We were talking about WMD terms being applied to simple pipe bombs, which is absurd.
As far as "brutal truths" go, I can handle them as readily now as I could when I was with the 5th Marine Amphibious Brigade in 1980 when we were prepped to wipe Iran off the map during the hostage crisis. Better, actually, since I much more fully realize now what is at stake.
And concerning Iraq, yes, the appelation of WMDs is quite appropriate. It is all to ironic that the mewlings of those who do not want to eradicate this threat now will be sitting on ground zero when Saddam launches. Their protestations on his behalf will not save them. Oh well.
