[jaguar]

Oh, I'm sorry. If I wanted you to understand that I meant Chechnya I suppose should have misspelled it "Chehcnay". But you usually transpose vowels, and there just weren't enough to go around. Does that "remind you allot" of anything among "you're weaponary"? Non-lethal, of course.

Slick, excuse me while I wither away under the heat of such biting comebacpfffft hahaha. A typo is one thing, systematically mangling the name of a country and its people is a little different.

No kidding. The intent of all that being to confuse the enemy, but most of all to avoid responsibility and retribution for one's actions.

After all, there is no guilt; all they have to do is avoid blame. That's why after 9/11 we got this load of hooey from the Taliban that ran "Oh, bin Laden? He's only our guest. Prove to us that he's done these terrible things you accuse him of."

Aren't you perfectly willing to sanction blaming the US for what the Israelis do? (Oh, but *that's* different. Sure it is.)

Huh? What are you on about? You completely lost me after the second paragraph.

"...where Al Queda is involved..." were indeed my words

Al Queda was not involved. An organisation with links to Al Queda was involved. A rather patchy organisation with allot of dead leaders at that.

"An epithet of a contrary signification is added to a word...". "Non-lethal" is the epithet, and "weapon" is the word. The examples of "weapon" offered in your own definition were guns, missiles and swords,.all known to comport perfectly with the concept of "non-lethality", right? No "contrary signification" here...

And in the same definition, logic. You're taking a very selective definition of weapon. So let me get this right? because guns, missiles and swords are lethal, all weapons are? Huh? We don't know if the chemical weapon, when produced was meant to be lethal or not, irrelevant of how it is then used. Your convoluted definition is rather interesting, ok we'll take a non-lethal weapon, as defined by NATO, which would include everything from radar jammers to bioagents that attack fuel. Why is for example, a radar jammer, not a non-lethal weapon. I mean it is An instrument of attack or defense in combat, right? And yet you'd have a damn hard time killing someone with it, unless you dropped it on them. Nowhere in the definition on weapon does it say a device designed, or for the purpose of killing anything, let alone people. While you'd love to define it narrowly the definition shows that anything, including logic, can be a weapon and thus it is farcical to say a weapon cannot be non-lethal. I mean a gun can be a non-lethal weapon, pistol whip someone or shoot them in the knee, but the intent is a weapon designed to kill. A non lethal weapon on the other hand is not, thus the NATO definition. Just because something can be a lethal weapon, does not be it is classified as one, lets face it, I could beat someone to death with my ipod, yet i don't see that described as a lethal weapon. It would also be a crime against aesthetics. I do love my ipod.