Something Bush refused to do...

[Timebuilder]

That's why the jack-booted thugs came blazing in with their guns drawn and shooting... "to protect the kids".

Guns blazing? Really?

I thought the agents came under fire first. From the compound.

The responsibility for the deaths is firmly and 100% on the shoulders of those who failed to comply with the surrender order.

No other observation is necessary.

 

[TonyC]

PREPOSTEROUS

Timebuilder, Typhoon -

Your making light of the murders of those children and their parents, etc. at Waco is truly low. The US Federal government (BATF, FBI, US Army, etc) murdered them for one or more of three reasons.

1. Revenge for the loss of the original BATF officers who attempted to storm their complex with handguns, jumpboots, cattle trailers and aluminum ladders (not very well thought out).

2. Irritated that anyone would challenge *their* authority, so they burned and shot them.

3. It was sporting to get *live* targets, so they could use their equipment. Ref pic link below.

http://www.wizardsofaz.com/waco/guyontank.jpg

there were black helicopters there, Timebuilder. US Hueys. Spotting fire against the people (children) inside.

There was "black" armor there too, Timebuilder. Used to carry troops, er, I mean police up to the building and fire ~400 incindiary CS gas cannisters inside the wood frame building.

And finally, yes, Typhoon, there were chemtrails at Waco. Those of the cs gas used against the kids in that building. It's accepted knowledge that there was more than enough cs gas pumped into the buildings to kill those kids.

Try and picture the hell those 41 mothers and children went though in that concrete room....

The cs gas would have made breathing and vision near impossible. As the heat from the incindiary cs gas rounds caught the building on fire, now we have smoke making vision and breathing near totally impossible. How are they going to get out?

From one of the forensic reports -

"There was a particular instance where all that remained
was the arm and hand of a mother clasping a small child's hand
and the remains of an arm."

I've seen pictures of a 6 yr old who died not from flames, not from bullets or crushing concrete or structure. She died from cs gas inhallation. Would be glad to PM you the link. It's quite disturbing.

It's the same stuff that's prohibited by international war crimes law in 1969. Can you imagine how that small child you've got pictured as your avitar would handle breathing that stuff?! I have kids and it tears me up to this our government did this to kids just like mine.

pretty flippant, heartless comments TB, Typhoon.

To hear you talk, Fly, there was nobody in the compound other than innocent women and helpless children. Can you imagine what it might have been like had there also been lawless adult men in there? Can you imagine what might have happened had those adult men left the compound when they were first lawfully ordered to do so?

I doubt we would have ever heard of the place, had they simply obeyed the law.

Nobody likes what happened there, and nobody delights in the loss of innocent lives, even children. To suggest that the ATF, or anyone for that matter, thought it was sporting to use innocent children as live targets for shooting practice is beyond ludicrous. In making or perpetuating such outlandish accusations, you're seriously destroying any credibility that you ever bestowed upon yourself.

 

[Typhoon1244]

Don't mind fly, he's just here to argue. I mean, just look at what he said about the 757!

 

[flywithastick]

Don't mind fly, he's just here to argue. I mean, just look at what he said about the 757!

Sorry. Seeing a 75 and 76 side by side, the 76 wins hands down. The proportions aren't right on the 75.

Tony -

Sorry, but I feel pretty strongly about it. I used to blindly support all law enforcement. Niot any longer. After Ruby Ridge,Waco and the way the INS seized Elian Gonzales, I'm just very sceptical of many police orgs motives and methods.

happy flying

 

[Typhoon1244]

Niot any longer.

"Niot?" Is that like "nyet?"

Are you a commie?

 

[flywithastick]

"Niot?" Is that like "nyet?"

Are you a commie?

allright... 'nough with the spell checking! I've learned to type much faster than I can think anyway, I think.

 

[TonyC]

Tony -

Sorry, but I feel pretty strongly about it.

Nothing wrong with feeling, or even feeling strongly, but there's PLENTY wrong with allowing feelings to blur your rational senses. There were men at Waco. They broke the law. They could have surrendered peacefully. They did not.

I'm not defending the actions of the government agencies involved (not here, anyway), but you have to admit this: If the men had surrendered when they were initially approached, the fiasco never would have occurred.

Accusing ATF of using children as live targets for shooting practice is, AS I SAID BEFORE, beyond ludicrous. You should be ashamed.

 

[flywithastick]

Accusing ATF of using children as live targets for shooting practice is, AS I SAID BEFORE, beyond ludicrous. You should be ashamed.

Correction - it was the FBI that took over for the botched action of the BATF and killed the people inside. The BATF apparently didn't hit much of anything. Several dozen federal police officials should be serving time for official oppression, murder, arson, assault, etc.

I'm ready to let this one go as is, but in no way feel ashamed for feeling as I do. they killed those kids - period. Just as they shot Randy Weaver's son in the back and his wife in the neck while she held their infant child. No excuses. they were dead wrong.

 

[TonyC]

Correction - it was the FBI that took over for the botched action of the BATF and killed the people inside. The BATF apparently didn't hit much of anything. Several dozen federal police officials should be serving time for official oppression, murder, arson, assault, etc.

I'm ready to let this one go as is, but in no way feel ashamed for feeling as I do. they killed those kids - period. Just as they shot Randy Weaver's son in the back and his wife in the neck while she held their infant child. No excuses. they were dead wrong.

There's no need to correct yourself, or were you trying to correct my brief characterization of your accusation?

It appears that after a couple of replies and rebuttals, you're trying to wiggle and "let this one go." Before I can let it go, I must revisit your original quote, and repeat my original response.

Your making light of the murders of those children and their parents, etc. at Waco is truly low. The US Federal government (BATF, FBI, US Army, etc) murdered them for one or more of three reasons.

3. It was sporting to get *live* targets, so they could use their equipment. Ref pic link below.

To suggest that the ATF, or anyone for that matter, thought it was sporting to use innocent children as live targets for shooting practice is beyond ludicrous.

I said "beyond ludicrous" because my limited vocabulary, or recall thereof, simply couldn't express at that moment how patently ridiculous the accusation was, or how incredibly unconscionable it is to make such an accusation. If I were to allow my 5-yr-old to help me with word selection, I might say "ludicrous to the moon and back." I stand by my characterization, and your saying "Correction, not the ATF, it was the FBI" doesn't change that a bit.

There's no need to be ashamed for the way you feel. I, too, feel the government handled the situation poorly. You should be ashamed, though, for making such an accusation. (I'm sorry if I didn't make that facet crystal clear on my last post.)

It's OK for you to retract the accusation, and it really won't weaken your position. Nobody will interpret a sincere retraction as meaning you in any way support the actions of the "US Federal government." (In fact, it might strengthen your argument, as it won't be tainted by a ludicrous claim.)

Happy trails.

 

[flywithastick]

There's no need to correct yourself, or were you trying to correct my brief characterization of your accusation?

Just making sure the statements were accurate. Not writing between the lines.

It appears that after a couple of replies and rebuttals, you're trying to wiggle and "let this one go." Before I can let it go, I must revisit your original quote, and repeat my original response.

would be more than glad to talk about the serious abuses by (mostly federal) police agencies all day long. I made statements about letting it go, because it's just you and me on the tail end of an argument that has for all practical purposes deadlocked.

I stand by my characterization, and your saying "Correction, not the ATF, it was the FBI" doesn't change that a bit.

Wasn't intended to. Read above.

There's no need to be ashamed for the way you feel. I, too, feel the government handled the situation poorly. You should be ashamed, though, for making such an accusation. (I'm sorry if I didn't make that facet crystal clear on my last post.)

Happy trails. [/B]

I do feel that there were some who viewed the siege as an opportunity to 'declare war' on someone. I stand by my comments.

 

[Galland]

Battle of the Somme, 1 July, 1916: 54,000+ British casualties on the first day. That doesn't count the French or the bad guys.

...the bad guys ??? What do you mean by that ?

Go back to check your history books...

 

[WrightAvia]

"One person's bad guy, is another person's good guy."