Subject:
|
Re: Libertarian Propaganda
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 17 Jun 2001 18:59:21 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
630 times
|
| |
|
|
Here we go again. Sorry for the length, but some folks need to have facts
pounded in nice and tight before they begin to comprehend.
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Matthew Gerber writes:
>
> > Also, I will be taking my facts from:
> > http://www.religioustolerance.org/dc_branc.htm . Go there and read it
> > yourselves.
>
> It is an interesting read. Thanks for the URL.
>
> > > > Waco was tragic. In a sense.
> > >
> > > In a sense? A bunch of people died for no good reason and most Americans
>
> > > don't even care! It is way more than tragic "in a sense."
>
> > Also, I will expect
> > to see solid proof of your statement that "most Americans don't even care"
> > before I'll ever start lending your post any real credence.
>
> You have quite an attitude about this, don't you? Well, I don't have proof.
Then, don't pretend to know my mind. Maybe I need to put an (s) after each
statement meant to be sarcastic? You can not throw blanket statements out
and expect them to have any real power. I was pointing this out.
> What I have is hundreds of
> conversations on the matter and an overall impression that across demographics,
> most people think that David
> Koresh specifically, and the Branch Davidians generally, got what they
> deserved. Does your personal
> experience differ? During the standoff and immediately after, I spoke to
> college classes about the inequity
> suffered by the Branch Davidians during the bungled arrest and following siege
> and was almost universally met
> with hostility.
Hmmm...then who is wrong, or is anyone? You seem to think that your opinion
is the more valid, and that thought fits the actual definition of 'opinion':
http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=opinion
o·pin·ion (-pnyn)
n.
1. A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by
positive knowledge or proof: “The world is not run by thought, nor by
imagination, but by opinion” (Elizabeth Drew).
Unless you are claiming to be an expert, but you don't sound like one here:
2. A judgment based on special knowledge and given by an expert: a medical
opinion.
But you lower my opinion of you when you make supposedly all-encompasing
blanket statements:
3. A judgment or estimation of the merit of a person or thing: has a low
opinion of braggarts.
And if the majority of the people you talked to had an opinion different
than yours:
4. The prevailing view: public opinion.
And our court system (you know, the one we have now and have to live with
until it is changed?) gave theirs on this matter:
5. Law. A formal statement by a court or other adjudicative body of the
legal reasons and principles for the conclusions of the court.
> > The fact that you seem to be glossing over here is the fact that authorized
> > members of our government were doing their required job by trying to serve a
> > warrant at the Waco compound:
>
> I'm not glossing over that at all. We hadn't discussed any specifics. But we
> can now.
>
> Why was a team of 76 soldiers needed to serve a search warrant?
Ummm...
"They assembled large supplies of arms; one source estimated 11 tons of arms
including antitank rifles."
"4 live grenades, 6 grenade launchers and 48 automatic weapons were
recovered after the fire, in addition to 151 legal weapons. Countless rounds
of bullets and a number of hand grenades exploded during the fire. When the
"bunker" was excavated, about 750,000 bullet casings were found."
"They looked upon Koresh as a deranged individual. He believed himself to be
Jesus Christ. They knew that he had a huge arsenal of illegal weapons."
And, the only soldiers present were three passive observers. These were
government agents.
> The Sheriff
> had served warrant at the front
> door of the Mt. Carmel dwelling a few times and had taken Koresh into custody
> without threat or fear of
> violence and without experiencing any difficulty.
Lucky guy. Brave (or stupid) too. He could have had 750,000 rounds of ammo
pumped into him. I wouldn't have gone there (except under orders, if I were
an ATF or FBI agent...it's part of the job, you know).
> Why wasn't he consulted by
> the BATF prior to their
> egregiously violent raid?
They wouldn't have acted in his jurisdiction without speaking with him
first. Do you really dilute your thinking with enough party propaganda to
stiffle the truth? I sure hope not.
> Why did their little warrant-serving army approach
> with automatic weapons under the
> cover of night instead of just driving up during the day?
See above ("Ummm...", although you seem to dislike doing this, I am not
going to keep quoting the same things over and over...I challenge you to
take the time to re-read the above and find the relevance)
> > The kids are the only real, true tragedy. They were the innocent
> > ones, the ones who had no choice but to be there because their parents were
> > there also.
>
> While I basically agree that they were the only ones with no choice in the
> matter, I'm not sure why the needless
> loss of adult life doesn't constitute a tragedy in your mind.
"Koresh and about 75 of his followers [numbers differ in various sources]
died of stab wounds, gun shots, and from the effects of smoke and flames.
This included 21 children."
I find it hard to believe that the government agents were throwing knives
into the compound...
"About 6 AM, two incendiary tear-gas grenades were fired at a concrete
bunker some distance from the frame buildings of the compound. They bounced
off the roof and fizzled out harmlessly in a nearby puddle.
About 12 o'clock noon, specially adapted tanks approached the building to
penetrate the walls and inject a form of tear gas inside. A group of fires
started almost simultaneously in different locations within the compound;
they combined to form a great conflagration."
I suppose government agents flew their black stealth helicopters over the
compound, unseen and unheard, and guys with lit torches repelled into the
compound at several different places to touch off those fires?
"In the resultant firefight, 6 Davidians and 4 ATF agents died; at least one
Davidian and 24 agents were wounded."
Those Branch Davidians were awfully good shots, weren't they? Oh yeah,
750,000 spent shells found. Right.
> > "Were there illegal weapons at Waco?: Probably there were. Koresh implied so
> > in a telephone conversation with the FBI; he also admitted it to his lawyer.
>
> You included this as part of the response to my claim that the deaths of the
> adult Branch Davidians, the
> miscarriage of justice, and lack of public concern were tragedies. And you
> asserted that those things were
> not. How does the presence of weapons alter the tragic aspect of the
> situation?
Once more for those slow on the uptake: THE BRANCH DAVIDIANS WERE STOCKING
UP ON ILLEGAL AND LEGAL WEAPONS. THEY WERE PREPARRING FOR THE BATTLE THEIR
SPIRITUAL LEADER TOLD THEM WAS COMING. THEY KNEW WHAT THEY WERE DOING, AND
KNEW IT WAS AGINST THE LAWS OF THE LAND THEY RESIDED IN. THEY WERE GOING TO
KILL SOMEONE, SOMETIME, AND THE GOVERNMENT AGENTS TOOK THE HIT, PROTECTING
THE GENERAL POPULACE FROM THE BRANCH DAVIDIANS, BEFORE THEY COULD DO HARM TO
THE GENERAL PUBLIC. THAT IS WHAT THE GOVERNMENT IS THERE FOR, AND THE AGENTS
WHO WERE WOUNDED OR KILLED ARE HEROES FOR PROTECTING THE RIGHTS AND LIVES OF
THE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES.
> Further, I reject that there were any illegal weapons because laws in the
> nation are always secondary to the
> ultimate law dictated by the constitution, which is quite clear on this topic.
> There are no such thing as "illegal
> weapons."
Laws be damned, huh? Bill of Rights takes presidence over all else? You
might actually want to READ my post in reply to Larry, about the Bill of
Rights and it's relevance today. No matter how it happened, the laws of the
United States are in place, and part of being a member of society is
following the rules as stated. If, in your free time, you want to lobby to
change those rules, good for you! That's what an open political system is
for. Have fun. If, in your free time, you want to plot to overthrow the
government, or commit acts of violence aginst innocents to get your points
across, you might want to have coffee ready for the goverment officials
coming to your door with their warrants.
> And even if you accept that such a white elephant exists, the presence of those
> weapons, even now is only
> "probable." That seems like a pretty awful reason to kill a bunch of folks.
I have to say, see above. They killed themselves.
> > "How were the fires started?:
>
> Again, I'm not sure how this affects the tragic nature of the events.
They killed themselves.
> > There is one belief that when a tank punched a
> > hole in a compound wall, it overturned a propane tank which broke into
> > flames. However, this scenario cannot account for the large number of small,
> > separate blazes that were observed to start about the same time in many
> > buildings.
>
> How does incendiary grenades fired by FBI agents sound as a plausible
> explanation? I remember sitting on
> my couch watching the news as federal agents fired incendiary grenades into the
> Branch Davidian's home as an
> FBI official stated to the reporter on camera that they were not doing that.
> It was in the background! And
> only recently (I heard it on an NPR news program 1-2 weeks ago) the FBI has
> admitted to having used such
> devices. Duh!
Incendiary TEAR-GAS projectiles. TEAR-GAS. Hello? TEAR-GAS is used when you
DON'T want to kill someone. The flash-bang action is necessary to help the
device penetrate and stun those nearby. Try reading, then try understanding.
> > There is another belief that Koresh ordered quantities of
> > kerosene to be placed around the compound and lit manually.
>
> Maybe. I'm not ruling out anything suggesting that they had their own
> problems. I'm not really qualified to
> judge that evidence, nor do I have it before me. Koresh was in all likelihood
> a nutcase.
>
> > See above to cover the "people like you don't even care" thing.
>
> See what above? You didn't even address it. You merely made some pompous
> claim that you expected to
> see 'proof' of something. I can only read from your text (and I have more of
> it supporting my opinion now)
> that you don't particularly grieve for the Branch Davidians or for the erosion
> of justice in the US.
Funny thing about that. I wasn't killed in some mis-guided Branch Davidian
protest, some brave government agents gave their lives up to protect me.
Sounds like justice is working just fine to me.
> > I'll now
> > expect to see my name on the actual printed roster of the names of Americans
> > Who Don't Care About the Events at Waco you need to produce.
>
> You're a riot! Need?
Sarcasm again. Learn to love it.
> > Please do not
> > propose to lump me into a group when you have no real idea who I am or what
> > I believe/think, especially if what you DO know of me from LUGNET will not
> > support the lumping-in.
>
> I only spoke what I saw. Don't lump yourself in if you don't want people
> calling what they see.
Look! I'm in the civil majority! What was that about majority rules? And
what do the Libertarians hope to become? Oh yeah, the civil majority. Good
luck. You obviously have your work cut out for you.
> > > > Was the government to blame?
> > >
> > > Yes!
> >
> > Funny, that's not what the courts have decided.
>
> Well, duh! You didn't think they'd admit that they were totally to blame do
> you? They'll do that in fifty years
> when all the participants are dead or in old folks homes and not before.
>
> > But then, I would guess that
> > you don't agree with the ruling, huh? Only thing is, it's been done.
>
> Of course I don't. I've analyzed the situation with nothing to protect. It is
> blatantly obvious
...to you...
> that the BATF and
> the FBI were criminally negligent in their handling of the situation. What
> does "it's been done" mean? Do you
> mean that a court made a decision and so we must accept their findings as
> truth? I will never agree to that. I
> would rather die.
I wonder if that would be 'tragic'? Or would you be sure to make it that way
by taking a bunch of innocent folks with you to make a statement?
> What about when a state congress rules that pi=3.14 (with out continuing
> digits)? What about when a court
> convicts a murderer and sentences them to death and kids in J-school unearth
> loads of contratictory evidence
> that the police didn't or couldn't obtain and it turns out that the state
> gassed the wrong guy? The truth is not
> defined by a court.
It is in a legal sense if you live in the United States. At least right now
it is.
> > "Time.com started a web-site poll on 1999-AUG-26. It asks the question: "Who
> > do you believe started the fire at the Branch Davidian compound in Waco."
> > The results, as of 2000-MR-6 were: Law enforcement 60%, Branch Davidians
> > 34%, Not sure 6% These values should not be considered to be an accurate
> > estimate of American public opinion. Contributors to the poll were
> > self-selected."
> >
> > Don't miss the irony of the last two lines of the quote.
>
> I don't get it. You want me to provide proof -- proof that could only take the
> form of survey results
> extrapolated to the populace, yet you point out that such surveys are fraught
> with inaccuracy. What is the
> irony that you noticed?
Sarcasm. Lets be blatent. YOUR VALUES SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE AN
ACCURATE ESTIMATE OF AMERICAN PUBLIC OPINION. YOU HAVE SELF-ELECTED TO
CONTRIBUTE YOUR OPINION HERE, AND CALL IT THE TRUTH. Hope that clears it up.
> > > > Or were their parents who had
> > > > involved them in the first place?
> > >
> > > Only to the same extent that a parent is to blame when their child dies in an
> > > automobile accident that wasn't their fault. A truck (the feds) hit a Honda
> > > (the Branch Davidians) head on while the Honda was in its own lane doing its
> > > own thing...and you're suggestion that it was the driver of the Honda's • fault.
> > > Bull!
> >
> > Nope again. Sorry. See above ("Nope. The kids are...").
>
> Saying "nope" isn't much of an argument. Can you do better?
See, you don't like to read previous statements. Please try a bit harder to
understand. Find the relevance of the fact that I had already answered your
argument on this point, and didn't feel like doing it all over again.
> > > > Or was Koresh? Doesn't matter now...does it?
> > >
> > > Yes, it most certainly does. It is not too late to punish the murderers.
> > > Legally even.
> >
> > The true 'murders' are dead. Only thing is, they committed
> > suicide-by-government, while couching their actions in false religious
> > dogma.
>
> What?!?!? Who did they murder? And who the hell are you to say that their
> little religion was false? I mean,
> I agree that their pantheon doesn't actually exist, but I think that about
> whatever supernatural beliefs you have
> too. If you are a Christian (I seriously don't know)
None of your business, just like I haven't disclosed my political party. It
is not relevant to this debate, unless you really need to draw some lines.
But you won't get it from me.
> then you presumably
> believe that the savior will come
> again, right? How do you know that it wasn't David Koresh? (And if your
> answer is "because he failed" then
> I ask, how did you know before that?)
>
> > At the most, government agents might be considered
> > unwilling/unwitting accessories to the deaths, but you'll need to see my
> > post to Larry for more on that.
>
> No. Each man who fired and the management who sent them there are all
> murderers. Each one should be
> tried. If I was told by my employer to do that, I would refuse.
Unless you had the balls to be a government agent, someone who knows it is
in the job description to lay their lives on the line for orders, trusting
their superiors to make the calls, and to take the responsibility.
> > > > McVeigh could have kept his actions peaceful...instead he caused another
> > > > tragedy, and tragedy + tragedy = 0.
> > >
> > > I certainly agree that he shouldn't have done what he did. But I'm not
> > > convinced that peace is always the way to go.
> >
> > Then stay the hell away from me and mine. I don't want to be within a
> > hundred miles of you when you decide it is your time to make a statement.
>
> So, you're a complete and total hard-line pacifist?
Umm...no. I just don't want you to go all nut-case-y anywhere near where me
and my family might be in harms way.
> You think that saving
> Europe's bacon during WWII was a
> great evil for the US? I respect that about you, but I can't agree. There are
> evils so great that violence, as an
> ultimate solution is justified.
And you get to be the final judge of what and who those evils are? Glad I'm
not evil. Just thought I would throw that out as long as we are tossing
around misconceptions.
> > > > Should he have been executed? It's the
> > > > law of the land...he knew that before he started planning the bombing. The
> > > > Branch Davidians knew the laws also. They made their choices, and you can't
> > > > place the blame for that on anyone but them.
> > >
> > > Horseshi<gag, muffle, muffle>!
>
> It occurs to me that it might look like I meant that McVeigh shouldn't have
> been executed. That's not what I
> was responding to...just the bit about blaming the victims in the Waco
> massacre.
They killed themselves.
> (I am opposed to McVeigh's execution, like I am all executions, for lots of
> reasons. But that's not what I was
> saying.)
Hmmm...innocents should be bombed into non-existence, and militant
quasi-religious groups should have as big a stockpile of weapons as they
want before they 'go into battle', but killers shouldn't be executed? You
truly scare me. Seriously.
> > > They didn't do anything wrong.
> >
> > That is not/was not the consensus of our duly elected/appointed government.
> > They are the only government we have in place, and it will be a long time
> > before there is a major change in that.
>
> And?
>
> When you ask a four year old if just painted on the wall, he says no because he
> knows that that should be the
> answer. Same with the government protecting itself. (hint: they're lying)
(hint: they're doing their job)
> > You are, of course, more than welcome to your own beliefs and opinions.
>
> Yes, thanks. I'll base mine on reality if it doesn't offend you too terribly
> much.
Hmmm...but the reality in your mind isn't of the real world. Perhaps a good
doctor...
> > You
> > can even sit in a shack in the woods plotting whatever violence you refer to
> > above.
>
> I'm sorry? What are you talking about?
>
> > However, 1) again, stay the hell away from me and my family when you
> > decide to do whatever it may be,
>
> Whatever.
>
> > and 2) don't be overly surprised when the
> > government agents come to get you.
>
> I wouldn't be _that_ surprised. I'm sure I'm on lists somewhere. After all,
> my eyes aren't occluded by a red
> white 'n' blue blindfold, the way some peoples' are.
To quote you: "I certainly agree that he shouldn't have done what he did.
But I'm not
convinced that peace is always the way to go."
> > After all, that's what they are there
> > for. To protect me and my family from people who would harm us.
>
> Koresh didn't want to harm you. If all they were there to do was protect us,
> that would be one thing.
> Deciding to joy ride with some new hardware and kill off some particularly
> disenfranchised citizens, on the
> other hand, is completely unacceptable.
Your opinion. A dissenting drop in the ocean of consent that says that
Koresh and the Branch Davidians were wrong in their actions, and killed
themselves in lieu of being taken into legal custody by the duly authorized
agents sent to police them. Keep fighting, Chris, but you might want to face
the reality of the real world one day. I've tried hard to keep these replies
civil and factual. I challenge you to take the time to do the same, instead
of offering your opinion as fact, and party propaganda as law. When the
Libertarians build up enough power to actually affect change in the united
states, I certainly hope cooler and more sane heads than yours are the
prevailing members.
Matt
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Libertarian Propaganda
|
| (...) What do you gain by being smug in your insults? Why not either discuss the topic, or not? (...) I haven't and won't pretend to know your mind. I will continue to assume that you mean what you say. I can hardly do anything but. (...) Maybe you (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Libertarian Propaganda
|
| (...) It is an interesting read. Thanks for the URL. (...) You have quite an attitude about this, don't you? Well, I don't have proof. What I have is hundreds of conversations on the matter and an overall impression that across demographics, most (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
271 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
