toldailytopic: Bombing at Moscow airport.

[Nydhogg]

But, in the event of a revolution, lightbringer would defend a government that callously murders its own civvies when they feel like it, and then proceed to jail the witnesses.

 

[some other dude]

What if ten percent of the population decides to revolt and their actions cause distress and harm to the ninety percent?

Isn't it the government's role to protect the ninety percent?

 

[lightbringer]

But, in the event of a revolution, lightbringer would defend a government that callously murders its own civvies when they feel like it, and then proceed to jail the witnesses.

What if ten percent of the population decides to revolt and their actions cause distress and harm to the ninety percent?

Isn't it the government's role to protect the ninety percent?

? Here we go again, you love to decide who is what and who will do what.

My statement;

"In the case of an individual acting on his own (not part of an organized rebellion), retaliating due to some disservice or grievance with the government, I see a person that needs help, not some kind of Patriotic Soldier."

Did you see the part in parentheses (Not part of a rebellion) ?

If a revolt or rebellion comes to this country, we each will have to decide which side of the line we will stand.

During a revolt (the peoples against the government) there are no civilians, only those that are actively carrying arms against it or in support of it.

I will not fantasize nor look forward to such an event, but I will stand for what I believe in and that is The Republic that the Constitution supports. If I feel the government is acting outside Constitutional law, then I will stand against it.

I don't set around dreaming of the coming revolution (if there is to be one) because I believe we can over come any disagreements in a peaceable manner, and for the fact I've seen war and would prefer to not see one with Americans facing Americans!

But you are correct, I will not side step nor shirk my duties when the time comes.

 

[lightbringer]

At the very least, both actions (Waco and Oklahoma) are morally equivalent. Still, my gut feeling says Waco was worse.
Why, you'll ask? Stationing kids alongisde military or law enforcement personnel is a textbook example of "using human shields". And the ATF mass murdered kids first.

Please explain what you are saying here, the part that is highlighted in red.

 

[Nydhogg]

Putting kids at a military base or a law enforcement department is effectively using the kids as human shields, in the expectation that would-be attackers will refrain because the kids are in there, or to elicit sympathy from the public if the attacker doesn't refrain.

It's sort of a dirty tactic, more fitting of a small-time gang than of a big, established gang like the American government.
In short... what the Hell did kids do in a federal law enforcement building on the first place?

In short, kids and innocent bystanders should be kept the Hell away from what are, for all effects and purposes, legitimate military targets.


If an insurrection or an hostile force were to invade, it's to be expected that they'll attack the military and law enforcement. Putting kids in law enforcement buildings or near barracks is using kids as human shields. It's something we generally condemn when insurgents do it, mostly because it exploits children in a horrible way.




You could put the daycare at a *nearby* building, but to put it *in* the building puts kids in harm's way.

 

[rexlunae]

Whaddaya think is more evil: The government ordering and executing the murder of a bunch of civvies, or a guy attacking the government in retaliation?

You really don't see a difference, do you? You're an apologist for random violence whatever form it takes, because it reflects your own demented desire for suffering.

 

[Nydhogg]

I'm not an apologist for random violence.

In fact, I defend a consistent philosophy of "zero initiation of aggression". I'm also an advocate of full retaliation against aggression, though.

 

[lightbringer]

Putting kids at a military base or a law enforcement department is effectively using the kids as human shields, in the expectation that would-be attackers will refrain because the kids are in there, or to elicit sympathy from the public if the attacker doesn't refrain.

Man, your getting crazier with each post!

You really believe that those children were put in that building with any thought of them being some kind of shield or media sympathy?

They were there because it was close to their parents work and that no one at that time thought anybody would be blowing up entire buildings.

It's sort of a dirty tactic, more fitting of a small-time gang than of a big, established gang like the American government.
In short... what the Hell did kids do in a federal law enforcement building on the first place?

Its called day care!

In short, kids and innocent bystanders should be kept the Hell away from what are, for all effects and purposes, legitimate military targets.

Legitimate Military targets? Who was at war at that time?

Any one that would do something like this could never be considered a warrior or a patriot, that man was a coward and mentally ill.

If an insurrection or an hostile force were to invade, it's to be expected that they'll attack the military and law enforcement. Putting kids in law enforcement buildings or near barracks is using kids as human shields. It's something we generally condemn when insurgents do it, mostly because it exploits children in a horrible way.

A shield is held in front of a warrior as they advance on the enemy, and not as the enemy advances on the day care.

You could put the daycare at a *nearby* building, but to put it *in* the building puts kids in harm's way.

Yes sir they could and you know what, they could put you some where that you won't be able to find any more of those mushrooms you've been eating!

 

[Nydhogg]

You really believe that those children were put in that building with any thought of them being some kind of shield or media sympathy?

Not intentionally, at least I don't think so.

Still, military and law enforcement facilities are a bad place to put children in.
It's putting children in harm's way. If unintentional, it's a very bad idea. If intentional, it's sick.


I didn't call McVeigh a warrior. In fact, I've expressed no opinion at all, except stating that Reno's crime is more heinous IMO. State terrorism is worse than non-state terrorism.
Non-state actors becoming predatory is a bad thing. State actors becoming more predatory is terrifying.

 

[lightbringer]

Not intentionally, at least I don't think so.

Still, military and law enforcement facilities are a bad place to put children in.
It's putting children in harm's way. If unintentional, it's a very bad idea. If intentional, it's sick.


I didn't call McVeigh a warrior. In fact, I've expressed no opinion at all, except stating that Reno's crime is more heinous IMO. State terrorism is worse than non-state terrorism.
Non-state actors becoming predatory is a bad thing. State actors becoming more predatory is terrifying.

" Reno's crime is more heinous IMO." At least we can agree on this!

Waco was a sad and mishandled operation, one for which should have had heads on a platter starting with Reno!

The ATF and the FBI will never be able to live this event down!

 

[rexlunae]

I'm not an apologist for random violence.

Then why defend it?

In fact, I defend a consistent philosophy of "zero initiation of aggression". I'm also an advocate of full retaliation against aggression, though.

And apparently what you're willing to accept as an initiation of aggression is fairly minimal and allow almost unlimited escalation in response.

 

[rexlunae]

" Reno's crime is more heinous IMO." At least we can agree on this!

Waco was a sad and mishandled operation, one for which should have had heads on a platter starting with Reno!

More heinous than the intentional killing of hundreds of innocent people in an attack that was no part of any organized champaign with any discernible goal and without even any declaration of the intended hostilities? Contrast that against a siege, begun by an attempt to serve a valid search warrant, where the intention of the government agents involved to preserve life was the most conspicuous feature (otherwise why would it take 50 days for the FBI to get inside a religious compound), and where the victims engineered their own destruction. Who is to blame for the deaths of the innocents? It can only be the people who guaranteed that they perish in the compound with the insane messianic leaders instead of being rescued.

The ATF and the FBI will never be able to live this event down!

Did you know that the people who were in charge at the ATF and FBI at the time aren't in office anymore?

 

[Nydhogg]

Rexlunae sees the State as a legitimate entity, whose authority should be heeded.
I see the State as a hostile, illegitimate entity, whose attempts at asserting authority are no different from common aggression.

I am an anarchist, you are not.


All the talk about "legal warrant" and "under color of law" gives me :vomit:
It simply does not matter, aggression is aggression, no matter who starts it.

The State is not a special case, they don't get a free pass to oppress others and assert authority. They shouldn't get it. They're just a bigger and better organized gang of thugs!
State aggression is exactly as immoral, if not even more so, than aggression by any other random party.


I don't see an ethical or meaningful distinction between a State actor and a non-State actor. :idunno:

 

[Nydhogg]

Did you know that the people who were in charge at the ATF and FBI at the time aren't in office anymore?

Insufficient punishmnent. They burnt kids alive. They should have been executed.

 

[lightbringer]

Contrast that against a siege, begun by an attempt to serve a valid search warrant, where the intention of the government agents involved to preserve life was the most conspicuous feature

Preserve life? Yeah, that's evident in the body count at the end of the siege.

(otherwise why would it take 50 days for the FBI to get inside a religious compound), and where the victims engineered their own destruction. Who is to blame for the deaths of the innocents? It can only be the people who guaranteed that they perish in the compound with the insane messianic leaders instead of being rescued.

It took 50 days because they had no idea what they were doing, that was evident when they went to the army for assault/ phys ops training and to get helicopters and tanks.

They had never been up against a group that felt they were in their right and were willing to stand their ground.

With each additional day the FBI was becoming more and more embarrassed with their inability to quell this situation with a "church" group and had to crank up the steaks in their efforts, that's why it escalated to a military assault operation, but even then the FBI bungled it, evidence with the number of agents that were shot by other agents.

Did you know that the people who were in charge at the ATF and FBI at the time aren't in office anymore?

Are you saying that since these agents have retired, been fired, or just moved on, we should forget this horrendous action?

But, thats kind of obvious isn't it? The shame for their actions will not go away soon and should be held as a reminder to them that the use of their brains and not brawn should be their best weapon, which was not evident at Waco! Their group mentality at Waco was the catalyst that fueled their aggression.

It also acted as a catalyst and has caused the other groups around the country to arm up and prepare plans in case an event like this occurs in their neighborhoods.

Crazy you say? If you truly believe that then spend some time reviewing the tapes of the Congressional Investigation, you will see our professional FBI and ATF agents circling the wagons to protect themselves, demonstrating that you can get away with anything if you twist the facts right.

Better negotiating techniques/training has come about due to this event, but at the cost of many lives, men, women and children.

If they were truly concerned over the lives at steak, all they had to do was set a perimeter (which they had accomplished, until someone wanted to force a conclusion and end the embarrassment and that was probably Reno), continue talking and wait, eventually it would come to an end without such a blood bath.

It would also help if people would stop talking about the end times prophesy, foretelling of events like this! It has a tendency to stir up fringe groups! But there's no law against fringe groups, at least not until they break the law, then all that is left to do is count the bodies for the record.

It was a shame, prior to this event the Branch Davidians were an accepted group in Waco, their community had nothing bad to say about them, then the ATF showed up, flexing their muscles.

 

[rexlunae]

Insufficient punishmnent. They burnt kids alive. They should have been executed.

From what I've been able to figure, the Branch Davidians burnt those kids alive rather than have them rescued. And only that explanation makes sense. The government had no incentive for bloodshed. It could only lead to embarrassment for them. The Branch Davidians, however, believed that David Koresh was their last profit and that they were in the end times and acted accordingly.

 

[rexlunae]

Rexlunae sees the State as a legitimate entity, whose authority should be heeded.

When civilization intersects with homicidal lunatic cults, I'll cheer for civilization every time.

I see the State as a hostile, illegitimate entity, whose attempts at asserting authority are no different from common aggression.

I am an anarchist, you are not.

Yes, I agree that that is the main difference between us. I like living in a world where people who blow up buildings intentionally are not allowed to roam free. I guess you just lack the moral sense to make that distinction. Your loss. In your ideal world, the Timothy McVeighs of this world would wander free, presumably killing and then running away as many times as they can before someone kills them back.

The State is not a special case, they don't get a free pass to oppress others and assert authority. They shouldn't get it. They're just a bigger and better organized gang of thugs!

They're the ones who wield society's collective will in their cause. It's a powerful weapon, not to be taken lightly. Contrast that against cowards like McVeigh who seeks no warrant but his own personal approval to kill anonymously and run away, and I find it shocking that you can find an equivalence between the two.

 

[lightbringer]

From what I've been able to figure, the Branch Davidians burnt those kids alive rather than have them rescued. And only that explanation makes sense.

A little deeper research would change your mind.

The government had no incentive for bloodshed. It could only lead to embarrassment for them.

Precisely the outcome, embarrassment and blood on their hands.

The Branch Davidians, however, believed that David Koresh was their last profit and that they were in the end times and acted accordingly.

End times beliefs are indeed strange, especially for fringe groups, but there is no law against it, but when combined with an assault by a force such as the FBI and ATF it leads to unusual acts that result badly.

 

[rexlunae]

It took 50 days because they had no idea what they were doing, that was evident when they went to the army for assault/ phys ops training and to get helicopters and tanks.

When a place is called "Ranch Apocalypse" by its inhabitants, you already know something about what they anticipate will happen there.

If the federal government had wanted to simply kill the inhabitants of the compound, it would have happened much sooner. They were balancing the enforcement of the law with the safety of the people inside.

They had never been up against a group that felt they were in their right and were willing to stand their ground.

That's certainly not true. Remember Ruby Ridge? But believing that you are right doesn't make you right, and it certainly doesn't exempt you from complying with legally issued court orders, and it doesn't transfer your responsibility for the crimes that you commit to the people who try to enforce the law against you.

With each additional day the FBI was becoming more and more embarrassed with their inability to quell this situation with a "church" group and had to crank up the steaks in their efforts, that's why it escalated to a military assault operation, but even then the FBI bungled it, evidence with the number of agents that were shot by other agents.

The situation was also made more urgent by the fact that there were allegations, later confirmed, that the children in the compound were being abused.

http://www.time.com/time/daily/newsfiles/waco/051793.html

I'm not saying that the situation was handled perfectly, but clearly the preservation of life was a high priority for the federal agents, and you cannot draw an equivalence to a cowardly act of mass murder without looking rather silly. The body count is the obvious result of one major factor: The Branch Davidians wouldn't be taken alive, and wouldn't allow their children to be rescued.

Are you saying that since these agents have retired, been fired, or just moved on, we should forget this horrendous action?

No. I'm saying that if there are specific charges against specific individuals, they should be brought before a court, and that the agencies don't live in infamy as a result of any such hypothetical charges.

It also acted as a catalyst and has caused the other groups around the country to arm up and prepare plans in case an event like this occurs in their neighborhoods.

If you mess with the bull, you get the horns.

Crazy you say? If you truly believe that then spend some time reviewing the tapes of the Congressional Investigation, you will see our professional FBI and ATF agents circling the wagons to protect themselves, demonstrating that you can get away with anything if you twist the facts right.

Circling the wagons, you'd expect, whatever the actual facts are. People want to protect their friends and close associates. If I were accused of some wrongdoing at work, I am sure that my boss and my coworkers would support me because they have confidence in me. Can you produce evidence of concealment of wrongdoing?

Better negotiating techniques/training has come about due to this event, but at the cost of many lives, men, women and children.

Which already demonstrates the intents of the agencies involved, no? Not really comparable to mass murder of innocents, is it? Incompetence is not the same thing as malfeasance, practically or morally.

If they were truly concerned over the lives at steak, all they had to do was set a perimeter (which they had accomplished, until someone wanted to force a conclusion and end the embarrassment and that was probably Reno), continue talking and wait, eventually it would come to an end without such a blood bath.

Pure supposition. The Branch Davidians were determined to die there. Maybe they would have starved themselves to death. Or maybe they would have chosen to go out in a blaze of glory attacking the federal agents. Or perhaps they would have resorted to cannibalism. Don't expect irrational groups to behave rationally.

In any case, the child abuse that was occurring was enough to provide an impetus to end the situation as soon as reasonable. I'm sure the national attention didn't make waiting any easier.

It would also help if people would stop talking about the end times prophesy, foretelling of events like this! It has a tendency to stir up fringe groups! But there's no law against fringe groups, at least not until they break the law, then all that is left to do is count the bodies for the record.

Sure, there's no law against believing in such absurdities. But understanding the belief helps to understand the aims of the group, and also the likelihood of blame assignment for the outcome.

It was a shame, prior to this event the Branch Davidians were an accepted group in Waco, their community had nothing bad to say about them, then the ATF showed up, flexing their muscles.

They were a schism of a schism of a schism from the Seventh Day Adventists. They had issues with other groups that were close to them. The Wikipedia articles about both David Koresh and the Branch Davidians seems to paint a slightly different tail, though I'm sure most people in the community were unaware of these goings on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Koresh
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branch_Davidian

 

[lightbringer]

This link you provided, http://www.time.com/time/daily/newsf...co/051793.html,

Was this to give some credence to the accusations of abuse?

It was an article written by "Sophronia Scott Gregory", after looking for information on her, hoping to find some credentials that would lead me to give some weight to her findings, all I could find is that she is a writer, provides book coaching and writers workshops?

Are we going to develop prosecution based on a person that earns her living by writing? Or would it be better to find a child psychologist or a criminal psychologist for this or at least some form of hard evidence (kind of hard to do after every one is dead and most site evidence went up in flames) that would stand up to a congressional investigation? Not to forget that the accused is normally provided with an opportunity to defend him/herself....another difficult thing when almost all the accused are dead, at least the prime suspects.

That is one of the things I noticed reviewing the tapes of the congressional investigation, many of the Congressmen on the panel were getting some what angry with so much evidence that was word of mouth/hearsay and not very much that a court would actually call hard evidence.

Not a great fan of Wikipedia since anyone can write an article and anyone can make changes to another persons article? Can't seem to put a great deal of faith in this when deciding if someone should be prosecuted....will definitely not accept Wiki as evidence.