There's the myopic jingoism we've all come to expect out of Draugnar.

I invite you to view the documentary I linked to (for starters) and try and make some cogent criticisms of its conclusions instead of just pointing a finger and exclaiming "conspiracy theory, haha!". Or is that too much to ask from a "former" Imperial Storm Trooper?

There's the moralistic youthful idealism we've all come to expect out of Thu...

Ah shit I didn't do it right did I guys

---CAGE MATCH---

>>DRAUGNAR THE OLD VERSUS TOLSTOY TBE GULLIBLE<<<

**PLACE ALL BETS NOW**

Yes, Tolstoy, I was an active duty Unites States Marine NCO and I am damned proud of it.

Tolstoy 9/4

While I think I could take Draugnar in a cage match (although I admit it might be close affair), I object to the appellation of "GULLIBLE". I've read four books on this subject, talked to a survivor of the massacre, read transcripts of the negotiation tapes, untold numbers of news reports, been to Mt. Carmel twice, and read several of the "conclusive" government reports on the massacre. I invite one and all to embark on the same level of inquiry I have and come away with a different conclusion of what happened.

Look if your thesis is that the US government has the capacity to be murderous and evil, that's a proposition so mundane as to be ignored. Maybe you should focus on our country's larger crimes, such as the destabilization of Latin American democracies, drone strikes, that sort of thing.

or even just in Puerto Rico . . .

Wacco Texas? yep i'm sure that was some bad publicity that some government officials regret...

Although if you took weapons from the NRA's cold dead hands it would be much easier to *NOT* kill citizens resisting arrest... just saying... ''Maybe you should focus on our country's larger crimes, such as the destabilization of Latin American democracies'' +1

Thucy, how come Libtards like you always want to talk about the US and their nefarious crimes...destabilization, etc, blah blah blah....as if we are insidiously ruling the world via underground blah blah blah...

yet when it comes to shit like Africa that you *supposedly* have such a heart for, you never want to talk about how fucked up the governments and culture are over there, and how nothing can be accomplished until those governments are ousted and replaced?

Why are the people of South America nto responsible for their own shit....

Here's a clue: I can't "destabilize" a happy and content people. If the culture and the government were not already broken and corrupt, the US wouldn't have any influence over them, assclown.

"Look if your thesis is that the US government has the capacity to be murderous and evil, that's a proposition so mundane as to be ignored. Maybe you should focus on our country's larger crimes, such as the destabilization of Latin American democracies, drone strikes, that sort of thing."

Huh? The government should get a pass on murdering people because it's murdering more people elsewhere?

"Although if you took weapons from the NRA's cold dead hands it would be much easier to *NOT* kill citizens resisting arrest..."

Not sure that would work. The police here in America obviously have no qualms about killing unarmed people, either. The problem isn't the murder victims; it's the murderers.

Krellin, the fuck are you talking about?

Since when do I pretend Africa has no problems?? Since when have I shied away from how horrendous governance is in Africa?

Look, it's easy to pigeon-hole me, but do it right. Focus on the things I actually say, instead of making shit up.

"Huh? The government should get a pass on murdering people because it's murdering more people elsewhere?"

Certainly not, it's just surprising to me that you focus on these domestic issues, when our government is much more of a villain in its actions abroad, for the most part.

"destabilization of Latin American democracies, drone strikes, that sort of thing."

I don't live in a Latin American democracy or Yemen, so I don't have to worry about either of those things. But I *do* live in the United States.

However, as far as government-vs-innocent people massacres are concerned, the Ruby Ridge Massacre was 100 times worse, if not in body count than in rationale. It's hard to sympathize with a cult who more or less committed suicide-by-federal paramilitary forces, but a property owner legally defending his property against trespassers is a whole different story.

Here is what matters... Were the federal forces duly acting on a proper search warrant for whatever cause? If so, the idiots died because they were, well, idiots. If not, the government is at fault and someone needs some life sentences. It really is that simple. If the cops come knocking on your door with a search warrant to take your illegally obtained weapons and you fire on them, they have every right to fire back and kill you if necessary.

"I don't live in a Latin American democracy or Yemen, so I don't have to worry about either of those things. But I *do* live in the United States."

This is fundamentally why I cannot take you seriously . You talk as if there is a morally significant difference between a Yemeni and an American, which there is not, unless of course your morality is based on selfishness.

I did live in a Latin American country, and they were rather good a destabilizing themselves. Krellin is spot on when he says you can't destabilize a happy and content people. You need a highly unstable equilibrium before you can hope to tilt the balance one way or another.

Blaming the suffering of others on parties other than yourself does zero to remove your obligation to help alleviate it.

Not to mention the fact that it's self-delusional to think you had no part in creating it either.

Would you approve of an EMS medic refusing to treat a gangbanger gunshot victim because "they brought it on themselves"? I thought not.

"Certainly not, it's just surprising to me that you focus on these domestic issues, when our government is much more of a villain in its actions abroad, for the most part."

When have I shrunk away from criticizing our government's actions overseas? It's possible to do both, and arguing that one or the other should be ignored because one side of the coin is heavier is absurd. More Americans have been killed by the police in their own country than Yemenis and Pakistanis have been killed by drone strikes in the last ten years (if the government's self-reporting of drone deaths can be believed). Does this mean we should ignore the dronings? Evil should be fought on all fronts; focusing on one only will inevitably result in being outflanked.

"Were the federal forces duly acting on a proper search warrant for whatever cause? If so, the idiots died because they were, well, idiots. If not, the government is at fault and someone needs some life sentences. It really is that simple. If the cops come knocking on your door with a search warrant to take your illegally obtained weapons and you fire on them, they have every right to fire back and kill you if necessary."

Wow, a lot of crap to unpack here:
1) It's not even certain that there was a warrant to be served; the ATF refuses to say who was carrying it on the day of the February 28th raid. The warrant that eventually came to light dealt primarily with the allegations of child abuse, which is not a federal crime, is not something the ATF would handle if it were, and was investigated by local authorities and found to be without merit.
2) The warrant was defective even if it had been properly served, as the ATF agents that wrote it up perjured themselves when claiming that the BDs had been operating a meth lab - completely without evidence - in order to get military training and equipment for the assault.
3) The ATF started firing before the warrant was served - their assault plan called for killing the BDs' dogs straightaway with gunfire, which I believe was what precipitated the gun battle.
4) The curious thing is that the warrant wasn't even necessary; David Koresh repeatedly extended invitations to the ATF to come and examine his inventory any time they liked without notice. The ATF refused to take him up on the offer, instead opting for their dramatic and headline grabbing military assault (code-named "Operation Showtime").
5) It is legal to resist the police when they are breaking the law and/or using unnecessary/excessive force (especially in Texas). Several of the survivors of the massacre were put on trial for murdering federal agents. They were all acquitted on the grounds of self-defense (the jury forewoman even said afterwards that they felt "the wrong people were on trial here"). Leaving aside the defects in the warrant (which by themselves made the whole raid illegal), is it really reasonable to go to someone's house with nearly a hundred storm troopers, guns blazing, supported by helicopter gunships to enforce some minor gun regulations when the alleged violator had repeatedly expressed his willingness to cooperate with the authorities?
6) No one (even the government) has ever alleged that the Branch Davidians had obtained their weapons illegally. The question was whether the paperwork for the weapons was in order and there was a suspicion (completely devoid of evidence) that some weapons had been illegally converted to fully automatic without the proper government license/tax being paid.

Draug, please do yourself a favor and watch the documentary I linked to. Most of these very questions are asked and answered there.

"as far as government-vs-innocent people massacres are concerned, the Ruby Ridge Massacre was 100 times worse, if not in body count than in rationale. It's hard to sympathize with a cult who more or less committed suicide-by-federal paramilitary forces, but a property owner legally defending his property against trespassers is a whole different story."

100 times worse? The similarities between the cases are so numerous it's absurd to try and pretend they're different. The Weavers had some pretty kooky religious beliefs that would've certainly made them "cultists" if there had been enough of them. And they were both defending their homes and families from the same set of government assassins (Lon Horiuchi, the FBI sniper who murdered Vicki Weaver as she held her baby in her arms, was at Waco in the Snipers' Nest behind the "compound" where the media wasn't permitted and several expended shell casings were found by the Texas Rangers, despite the FBI's claim that no one fired during the entire siege). The charge of mass suicide is pure bunk, as the Texas Rangers' discovery of the spent pyrotechnic rounds demonstrated that the FBI intentionally started the fire.

He won't watch it, Tolstoy. He won't even respond to that post, in all likelihood, and if he does he'll blatantly distort some isolated sentences from a Wikipedia article on the raid to "prove" you wrong. He's a coward with no integrity.

So im not goint to watch a 2 hour youtube movie. Can somebody tell me what happend?

@ Thucy

"This is fundamentally why I cannot take you seriously . You talk as if there is a morally significant difference between a Yemeni and an American"

I oppose America's drone program because I believe that you can't go around cratering other countries without a formal declaration of war, or at the very least a letter of marque and reprisal. I wasn't trying to belittle the hypothetical Yemeni's plight; I was merely illustrating my point that illegal paramilitary raids on law-abiding Americans are a more pressing concern to me than America's drone program.

@ Tolstoy

"100 times worse? The similarities between the cases are so numerous it's absurd to try and pretend they're different....."

Okay, so I was being hyperbolic. Give me a break. All I was saying is that I'm more sympathetic towards the Weaver family than the Branch Davidians, but both groups were victims of wholesale slaughter.

"my point that illegal paramilitary raids on law-abiding Americans are a more pressing concern to me than America's drone program."

Right, and my point is that there is no just cause for thinking that. But do carry on.

I said a more pressing concern to *me*. We can't all be egalitarian fools, Thucy. I happen to fear the jackbooted alphabet-soup thugs more than I fear errant Hellfire missiles because the former is a more realistic threat *to me personally.*

If I were in charge of things, I would end both the drone program and disband the jackbooted thugs at the same time and with equal prejudice. But since I'm not in charge, I *fear* the jackbooted thugs more. That doesn't mean I care any less about illegal acts of war against sovereign nations.

Stop going after me; we have concurring viewpoints on these issues.

Fair enough to fear that more, but in our political opinions we should think as if we are ourselves the leaders, and, as you say, it is right and proper for a just leader to think of all people as morally the same, i.e., be egalitarian.

Okay, I've read this debate and am left with the question that I almost always have after reading debates such as this. What are you looking to accomplish? Is there legislation in the works that could help force more review of the killings by police? Is there a different form of government you'd rather see in place? Do you think we'd be safe without the military, and if not, what's your alliterative?

I can appreciate if you're only posting in remembrance of the people who died that day, but it seems like you're aiming for something more than just remembrance.

I do hope you will take the time to answer this, as I am interested in understanding.

While talking of atrocities never forget Nagasaki & Hiroshima ...... if you needed to make a point why two anyway, why not one?
As single (or double) act atrocities go this was up there with the worst ever.

Tolstoy, you seem to have omitted that the while the survivors were acquitted of murder, they were convicted of voluntary manslaughter of federal agents.
Please don't cherry pick the facts. They were guilty as fuck.

Nigee, they made two points because if they only made one, they would've had to deal with the "well, they only have one bomb" theory. Not arguing that that was the proper thing to do morally or diplomatically, but that's why.

With regard to Waco I am guessing there are thousands, if not millions, of people who live with their own versions of Christianity. Is there anything wrong with these people, possibly, but are they a threat to the general public, probably not.
You want to see the anti-Christ, check out the people who live off of the profits from the human misery we call the arms industry.
The axis of evil ..... is it Iran who now talk of equal rights for women or the industries that perpetuate and produce weapons of mass destruction.
I'm not a God-botherer but if I was I would find it very hard to be aligned with any govts and companies that export murderous weaponry.

"Tolstoy, you seem to have omitted that the while the survivors were acquitted of murder, they were convicted of voluntary manslaughter of federal agents."

For a detailed explanation of the verdicts and sentences (which were illegal) of the criminal trials, see http://www.carolmoore.net/waco/waco-trial.html

Oh sure, a conspiracy theorist site to back your conspiracy... That's really being intellectually honest.

"What are you looking to accomplish?"

In 1996, the FBI was involved in a standoff with the Montana Freemen. It ended peacefully after 81 days of negotiations. In 2008, the FBI went after the FLDS Church of Warren Jeffs. Despite the amazing similarities with the Branch Davidians ("crazy cultists" with lots of guns and multiple wives), no one died. There have been numerous other smaller situations - the Bundy Ranch standoff being the most recent - where the government has avoided the kind of over-the-top display of machismo that led directly to the greatest loss of life in a law enforcement incident in the United States in a hundred years, instead choosing to pursue more measured courses of action. The reason for this restraint is always explained in one soundbite: "we don't want another Waco". The Waco Massacre has been a cloud on the national consciousness of America for the last 21 years. It has affected the way American Law Enforcers do business - for the better. I don't know if it's out of genuine concern for their victims or just a desire to avoid embarrassing congressional investigations, but it doesn't really matter - I have no doubt that if it weren't for Waco and the media exposure it got, there would've been more than a couple other Wacos over the last two decades.

The problem is that memories die. There's at least one poster on this thread who is apparently too young to have any knowledge of Waco at all. The risk here is that as Waco passes through and out of our collective national consciousness as those who were around to remember it forget about it or die off, the risk of a repeat starts to increase. But if we can keep the shadow of Waco hanging over the operational plan of every large FBI operation, I have no doubt that - in the long run - lives will be saved. That is my main goal.

Are you capable of anything beyond "Conspiracy theorist, neener neener!", Draug?

Tolstoy you just tried to argue that a federal court made illegal rulings.
You are batshit crazy. What the court rules is law unless a higher court overturns it.

From the link I posted (but, it seems, was not read):

"The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously decided today in Castillo et al. v. United States that firearm types defined in the federal Gun Control Act are elements of offenses that must be alleged in the indictment and decided by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. The case involves the 30-year sentences imposed on Branch Davidians who escaped from the tragic fire near Waco, Texas, in 1993. They were charged with and convicted of carrying or using a "firearm" in a crime of violence during the BATF raid. 18 U.S.C. º 924(c) makes this a 5-year offense, but the sentencing judge decided that "machineguns" were used and imposed a 30-year sentence."

Is a unanimous Supreme Court verdict a high enough authority for you?

I read the case.

First of all, a court's ruling is not 'illegal' if it is overturned by a higher court. It just means the higher court's ruling takes place instead of the lower court's. Please educate yourself about the legal process before trying to comment on law.

Secondly, that ruling in no way vindicates the Branch Davidians. They merely disputed whether they should be sentenced to 30 years in jail instead of 5. They were still guilty on that count no matter what.

Thirdly, that was but one of many crimes they were indicted and found guilty on.

Please stop cherry picking, Tolstoy.

I have nothing to add to this thread except....

I think it's great that the OP is remember this event 21 years and 1 day later rathar than on an actual anniversary. Remembering things only on the actual anniversaries is so last year and 17 days ago. I would encourage all people between the ages of 8 year, 2 months and 4 days and 108 years, 6 months and 29 days to take a leaf out of this guys book.