I believe that the recent news about the Penn State Altoona student who is suspected of making two small bombs has been taken way out of context and has been exaggerated.
Vladislav Miftakhov did make a bomb, which is illegal but based off the charges they brought about and his half a million dollar bail, they are inferring it was much worse.
According to the article, they found two small bombs and other bomb making materials. Why is it necessary to charge him with possessing a weapon of mass destruction and investigating this as a potential act of terrorism?
When someone says weapon of mass destruction, I think of a nuclear device, and I think others would agree with me on that. By definition, a weapon of mass destruction is a nuclear, chemical, or biological weapon (dictionary
How can two small bombs, made from potassium perchlorate and atomized magnesium, both of which are not nuclear agents, be considered a weapon of mass destruction?
How can owning two small bombs be considered an act of terrorism? That's like saying if you own two fireworks, you're a terrorist, which would be considered completely ridiculous.
I don't think what he did was right, and I think he should be charged for what he did is illegal. But I do believe it needs to be toned down and brought back into the realm of realism, and not exaggerate calling a kid, who made a little bomb to blow up in a field, a terrorist.