The alleged Boston Bomber is being charged with using WMDs...?

I have my suspicions about this Boston Bombing fiasco... A couple points I find interesting is one, there is a video, show both brothers attempting to surrender, hands in the air, to the police, shouting "we didn't do it..." but instead, the police started shooting at them... in fact, there was a reported witness who says that it was the police, that ran over the brother and they jumped out of their vehicles and gunned him down... that is why the other brother ran after being shot by the police... there is video of this, and if all true, then the police became a hit squad and attempted to silence both brothers and this whole Boston Bombing may have been another cover-up incident... WMD's? Yeah, whatever... just another term that the Govt. created, that has a broad range of interpretation's!

There is more to this story, than what we've been told... something smells rotten in D.C., more than Obama's breath!

As mentioned there isn't a really concise description of a WMD.

I would consider a WMD to be something specifically designed to cause mass damage and/or (civilian) casualties. So an IED is not a WMD because its target is an individual on foot, or a vehicle. Likewise, I would not consider a car to be a WMD even if it plowed into a crowd of people because a car was not specifically designed to be a weapon.

Going back to Iraq and its WMDs, the US government was specifically referring to nuclear, biological or chemical weapons capable of death and destruction on a very large scale - not a pressure cooker full of black powder and nails.

However, I think the US government is intent on making an example of the Boston Bomber as a statement to all other would-be terrorists, and the rest of the world, that such behavior will not be tolerated.

There is no set or official definition of a "weapon of mass destruction."

It was first used in reference to mass aerial bombings in WWI.

Nowadays, it most often refers to nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. That seems odd to me, because obviously there are other ways of creating mass destruction. And some chemical and biological weapons at least, cause only temporary harm. E.g. tear gas, or the use of salmonella as a weapon to sicken the population temporarily.

Maybe they are calling them WMD because they did cause multiple casualties.

It is certainly confusing, though, if none of Saddam's weapons they found in Iraq were WMDs, and yet an IED in Boston is classified as WMD. Double standard, you might say. Poor use of the language.

I believe the words explain it

A weapon used to create mass of destruction.