Waco: a look back
- Thread starter tjhands
- Start date
leadcounsel
Moderator
I hate to see this can of worms open again. It always starts a heated debate.
see.
Dean M. Kelley Waco: A massacre and it's aftermath
http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9505/articles/kelley.html
also
Not so Waco, The new republic May15,1995
Do your own research and ignore the opinions of the boards. You will find that none of the original justifications for launching the final assault have withstood the test of scrutiny.
As I reread your post if your asking an opinion I believe the facts speak for themselves.
Be careful where you get your facts as a lot has been placed outside the freedom of information act. To quote R.E.Barnett. "We were misinformed now we are uninformed".
see.
Dean M. Kelley Waco: A massacre and it's aftermath
http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9505/articles/kelley.html
also
Not so Waco, The new republic May15,1995
Do your own research and ignore the opinions of the boards. You will find that none of the original justifications for launching the final assault have withstood the test of scrutiny.
As I reread your post if your asking an opinion I believe the facts speak for themselves.
Be careful where you get your facts as a lot has been placed outside the freedom of information act. To quote R.E.Barnett. "We were misinformed now we are uninformed".
Last edited:
from the site posted above by leadcounsel: http://www.serendipity.li/waco.html
Why are they comparing Clinton/Waco, to Bush/9-11?
Why are they comparing Clinton/Waco, to Bush/9-11?
Hugh Damright
New member
What worries me is that, instead of realizing that the Framers were wise to reserve police powers to the States and disbanding the federal gun police, the ATF has been moved from Treasury to Justice ... aren't they at least supposed to PRETEND that they are a constitutional federal tax enforcement group and not unconstitutional federal gun police?
thatguyjosh
New member
What a debate this could turn into.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
That's a pretty whacked site. Full of crazed conspiracies, evil Zionists, UFOs, Yogis and the like.
Good source!!
Good source!!
TheeBadOne
Moderator
Ultima-Ratio
Moderator
So Glenn-
You are saying that there are no conspiracies, no zionists nor ufos?
You are saying that there are no conspiracies, no zionists nor ufos?
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
They are outside your house now. However, you cannot see them because of their stealth technology. You will feel them, you know where in a few minutes. 
shootinstudent
New member
+1.
There are conspiracy theorists all over the net who ironically, in "exposing the threat" of government, are dumbifying a whole new generation of impressionable online youth, and encouraging them to hate law enforcement and all other arms of their own government.
Way to seed unity and pride in America, "patriots" :barf:
tjh,
Don't know if you have read Dick Reavis' _Ashes of Waco_, if not you might want to. From what I have seen over the years he did a creditable job of investigating and reporting at the time he wrote the book.
"What really happened? Do you hold the same opinion today as you did back then? Was it justified? Was it botched? Was it a once-only event or a harbinger of the future status quo?"
What really happened? I still don't know. A lot of people died, under some unusual circumstances, some of which are not completely explained by the official story. Some odd coincidences took place, and some critical evidence is still missing, some critical events are still unexplained. My opinion hasn't realy changed a lot because few new facts have emerged in recent years. I still believe it was wrong, horribly wrong, a publicity stunt gone fatally awry that set in motion a chain of events with an inevitable conclusion when the juggernaut of government use of force was set in motion.
I think what eventually happened was what was eventually intended to happen, and therefore it wasn't botched. It was a once only event as is every single event, but it established one more new landmark on the terrain of law enforcement use of force, leaving well behind the event that was the MOVE bombing in Philadelphia in 1985 and progressing far beyond Ruby Ridge. Whether there will be further navigation into the so far unexplored territory beyond that particular landmark remains to be seen.
lpl/nc
Don't know if you have read Dick Reavis' _Ashes of Waco_, if not you might want to. From what I have seen over the years he did a creditable job of investigating and reporting at the time he wrote the book.
"What really happened? Do you hold the same opinion today as you did back then? Was it justified? Was it botched? Was it a once-only event or a harbinger of the future status quo?"
What really happened? I still don't know. A lot of people died, under some unusual circumstances, some of which are not completely explained by the official story. Some odd coincidences took place, and some critical evidence is still missing, some critical events are still unexplained. My opinion hasn't realy changed a lot because few new facts have emerged in recent years. I still believe it was wrong, horribly wrong, a publicity stunt gone fatally awry that set in motion a chain of events with an inevitable conclusion when the juggernaut of government use of force was set in motion.
I think what eventually happened was what was eventually intended to happen, and therefore it wasn't botched. It was a once only event as is every single event, but it established one more new landmark on the terrain of law enforcement use of force, leaving well behind the event that was the MOVE bombing in Philadelphia in 1985 and progressing far beyond Ruby Ridge. Whether there will be further navigation into the so far unexplored territory beyond that particular landmark remains to be seen.
lpl/nc
Rich Lucibella
Staff
Call mine a very jaundiced eye, if you will. I won't be insulted.
What I have seen is that a "War on [Fill in the Blank]" is a proven formula for success of parties in power. At the time of Waco the War on Poverty had been lost (quiet surrender, though the resulting War Taxes never abated); The War on Drugs was boring, schizophrenic and questionable.
So the Administration at the time needed a New War; a Fresh War. Anyone remember the attempts to paint "Militias" as the New Public Enemy? "Evangelical Christians With Guns" was part and parcel of that War. Waco was the result.
It took a new administration and an act in September 2001 to crystallize Americans fears about their neighbors next door. So, today, we have a much more catchy name for a much more amorphous enemy. It's called the War on Terror.
Waco will happen again.
Rich
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
I read a book by an anthropologist who looked at the incident as a clash of cultures and the problem with the FBI during the siege refusing to listen to behaviorial and religious experts as they were locked into a hostage rescue game plan with set procedures. She interviewed lots of folks on both sides.
For example, the FBI playbook said don't give a concession without a concession. Thus, the Davidians asked for milk for their babies.
The FBI said only if you let the women go.
The Davidians:
1. Thought that meant the FBI were devils as what person would deny the babes milk.
2. It implied that the women were inferior and not able to make their own decisions to leave if they wanted to.
3. That the refusal to give milk confirmed that the government planned an massacre and the Davidians planned accordingly.
The problem was a rigidity of plan and a given mindset on the use of force. The argument is similar as to why the response to Columbine fell apart as folks couldn't think out of the play book.
It's common in the decision making literature.
Interesting read - don't have the reference at hand. It does remind me of my military history teacher who argued that you must understand the mind of your foe, be flexible and use the indirect approach if you can.
For example, the FBI playbook said don't give a concession without a concession. Thus, the Davidians asked for milk for their babies.
The FBI said only if you let the women go.
The Davidians:
1. Thought that meant the FBI were devils as what person would deny the babes milk.
2. It implied that the women were inferior and not able to make their own decisions to leave if they wanted to.
3. That the refusal to give milk confirmed that the government planned an massacre and the Davidians planned accordingly.
The problem was a rigidity of plan and a given mindset on the use of force. The argument is similar as to why the response to Columbine fell apart as folks couldn't think out of the play book.
It's common in the decision making literature.
Interesting read - don't have the reference at hand. It does remind me of my military history teacher who argued that you must understand the mind of your foe, be flexible and use the indirect approach if you can.
What scared me about Waco was the fact that it shows the Federal Government at its worst. The FBI came in and took over and screwed the pooch. The FBI should have been working with local law enforcment not in the place of them. If that had been the case some good federal law enforcment agents and the folks in the compound might still be alive today.
dont use a sledgehammer to kill a fly when a swatter will do the job just fine.
dont use a sledgehammer to kill a fly when a swatter will do the job just fine.