Total Posts:111|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

I'd like your opinion on...

Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2009 3:44:58 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
...the Waco Siege / Waco Massacre that occured in the spring of 1993. I had first heard about this when I took a psychology class two years ago, where in the group psychology section, David Koresh was used as an example of a cult leader. As I remember, the book said that his grip on people was so powerful, that they were willing to set fire to their own building and commit mass suicide.

I have not thought about it much since then, until I came upon a video today. It is called Waco: The Rules of Engagement, and after watching it, it completely changed my mind about things. Well, not completely. Being an anarchist, there's not much you don't expect already - but that's not the point. Even though I do believe that the government is a monopoly on violence, it's.... just not that real. I've played FPS's for a long time, and I play pretty often, but for some reason, even though it's simpler and softer, the sounds of real gunshots are much more scarier than any SFX any FPS can dish out. You know what I mean? It's like how you can see some people calling religions cults. And I say people because this isn't limited to atheists - some theists call other religions cults too. And you don't realize it, until you see it up front. Until you've seen Jesus Camp.

But I also recognized that there are other videos that have resounded with me very well, Zeitgeist (the first) and Enemy Image being my two most memorable. However, these are almost always labelled as conspiracy theories. And not just conspiracy theories in the denotative sense, but in the derogatory sense. The definition of a conspiracy theory (from Wikitionary) is "a hypothesis alleging that the members of a coordinated group are, and/or were, secretly working together to commit illegal or wrongful actions". However, it is commonly used as basically a "non profane" ad hominem attack.

I want to know what people see Waco as. Do they see it as, like in my old psychology book, a cult leader who got everyone to kill themselves with him? Do they see anyone who says otherwise as a crazy lunatic? Do they see people who try to say that Waco was a home invasion, do they see those as people who are conspiracy theorists and should be locked away in a torture chamber?

I mean, I didn't know much about Waco before, and to be honest, before watching Waco: The Rules of Engagement, I was just a theoretical anarchist. Yeah, I don't agree with you here there and there, I think the state is just violence and violence is immoral blah blah blah... but now, it's so real to me. It's just... so real. I don't know another way to describe it. The state is just so horrifying to me. I mean like I've said I've talked about this for a while and I've been reading arguments on how to show that anarchy is a good thing both economically and morally, because Keynesian econ is crap and you can't solve things at a point of a gun....

but... I don't know. It's just had such an impact on me. I used to hate the state, but now that I look back, it's like I was just placing my parents as the state. I've never really liked my parents, their method of "disciplining" me has always been pretty tragic. For little things they tell me not to do things, for bigger things they yell at me, for huge things they break all kinds of items on my wrists and for the hugest things they sit down and ask me what I'd like - but anyways. I've always associated my parents with the state. I think that's what this is, anyways. I didn't like the violence they used against me, and I didn't like the unfairness of their judgements and their inconsistencies, but it was always just kind of an annoyance. I could hate them because they wouldn't really do anything to me that I couldn't recover from within a few hours (some of those whackings really hurt. Clotheshangers.... try ramming your wrists against one at 5mph sometime)...

But this. Waco. It was beyond my wildest imaginations. Perhaps it's because my imagination wasn't that detailed or as good as I thought, but like... wow. I don't hate the state anymore. I fear it. It's... scary. There's no other way I can describe what I felt after seeing the videos and transcripts and all the evidence from that documentary. It's like I've been sheltered all this time. The government is the monopoly on violence... and like, sure, for you non-anarchists out there, let's say it isn't, right? Let's say that's not what the government is. But look at this. Look at what they can do. Even if it's not a monopoly, look at this. Tanks? On civilians? Just, wow.....

But anyways, enough of my ranting. I'm interested in what other people see Waco as.

What do YOU think about Waco?
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2009 5:46:31 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/9/2009 3:44:58 AM, Rezzealaux wrote:
But I also recognized that there are other videos that have resounded with me very well, Zeitgeist (the first)

Uhoh.

And not just conspiracy theories in the denotative sense, but in the derogatory sense.

Well, sure. The meaning "theory about a conspiracy" is almost never used. It's mostly used in the meaning "A crazy theory involving an imagined conspiracy fueled by ignorance and delusions". This is of course for the simple reason that mosts conspiracy theories (including the one in Zeitgeist) is a crazy theory around an imagined conspiracy fueled by ignorance and delusions.

I want to know what people see Waco as. Do they see it as, like in my old psychology book, a cult leader who got everyone to kill themselves with him?

This is likely the case, yes.

Do they see anyone who says otherwise as a crazy lunatic?

Depends on what they say.

Do they see people who try to say that Waco was a home invasion, do they see those as people who are conspiracy theorists and should be locked away in a torture chamber?

No. It was a home invasion, of sorts. I'm not sure why you see these things as opposites.

I mean, I didn't know much about Waco before, and to be honest, before watching Waco: The Rules of Engagement, I was just a theoretical anarchist. Yeah, I don't agree with you here there and there, I think the state is just violence and violence is immoral blah blah blah... but now, it's so real to me. It's just... so real. I don't know another way to describe it.

You have had a moment where you realize something that fit's into what before was just a theory. Congratulations. Don't make too big deal of it. :) You have realized why the state is a bad thing. You have still (as you call yourself an anarchist) to realize why it's a good thing. It is, as most things, both.

But this. Waco. It was beyond my wildest imaginations. Perhaps it's because my imagination wasn't that detailed or as good as I thought, but like... wow. I don't hate the state anymore. I fear it. It's... scary.

Good.

But anyways, enough of my ranting. I'm interested in what other people see Waco as.

It was a crazed religious sect, led by a crazed cult leader, that more or less by mistake ended up in a conflict with the ATF. The ATF, having no knowledge about neither sects in general, or this sect in particular, not only misjudged the situation, but almost all the things they tried to do to solve the stand-off made it worse, leading into an escalating craziness from the part of the sect and an escalating fear on the part of the ATF.

The end result was that some people in the sect decided to put the building on fire. Why they decided this is impossible to know, as the mental state of the cult members at this point had become so far removed from reality and logic as it is impossible to deduce. On the people starting the fires/giving the orders could tell us, and they are dead.
So prove me wrong, then.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2009 8:09:53 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
There is a reason you associate your parents with the state. The state legally backs almost anything they happen to do.Most parents are powerless without that :).

I don't care who the people in Waco were (Probably a little crazy, but insanity is not a crime and should not be), the fact that the agency used against them was the ATF automatically proves that what happened should not have happened.

Though "Fearing the state" as such, as a result of this, is kind of like fearing all black people because one raped your friend. It's understandable, but not logical.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2009 9:20:37 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/9/2009 8:09:53 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

I don't care who the people in Waco were (Probably a little crazy, but insanity is not a crime and should not be), the fact that the agency used against them was the ATF automatically proves that what happened should not have happened.

Why should it not have been the ATF (Alcohol Tobacco Firearms)? One of the major reasons they were being raided was because of the huge stockpiling of weapons. Not small weapons, assault rifles, &ct.

If I remember Waco correctly, the state had legitimate reasons for the raid (child abuse, statutory rape, stockpiling of illegal weapons [for the apocolypse]).

The OP was upset that tanks were used. The original raid did not include the use of tanks. They were forced to bring heavier force when the group opened fire on the federal officers. I think at that point the state is justified in protecting the general public against a violent sect of religious fanatics.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2009 9:36:06 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
I equate Waco with an event that occurred in Canada in 1990.

Then, a small indian band northwest of Montreal had occupied a golf course and blocked off traffic going towards Ottawa, all in this little town called Oka. The occupiers had illegal weapons and were illegally occupying land - something that is, understandably, frowned upon. I think the fact that they had firearms was the major dangerous threat in the minds of Oka residents and police.

So, the police eventually went in because the occupiers ignored warnings to disperse, and they raided the blockades and etc. Shots were fired, and a police officer was killed during the raid.

What happened next is a matter of controversy, similar to the many claims of "excessive force" in Waco. The Canadian military was ordered to come in, march towards all blockades, and disperse the occupation. These soldiers were fully armed, with APCs rolling behind them, using a "if you shoot, we'll shoot back" policy. Nothing really came of this, as the Indians backed off when they saw military soldiers marching towards them - but a lot worse could have happened.

Now, the reason I said this was to explain something. "Excessive force," is, at times, needed force when dealing with situations like Oka or Waco. The people on both sides are armed and dangerous, and ultimately the real authority is the group with the bigger weapons and better training - this would be the ATF, in Waco's case.

Waco is a situation that could have been handled better, at least from what I know of it - but, excessive force was needed force in this case. How else do you deal with people that are holed up in a literal fortress, with stockpiled weapons and ammunition? Send in the lightly armed police, not really meant to deal with situations like this, to take them out? Or do you send in the heavy equipment to save as many lives of the people under your command as possible.

It is a similar argument to the use of the atomic weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Do you deploy a weapon that saves lives of those under your command, or send millions to their possible deaths in a costly and lethal invasion?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2009 9:47:58 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/9/2009 9:20:37 AM, JBlake wrote:
At 8/9/2009 8:09:53 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

I don't care who the people in Waco were (Probably a little crazy, but insanity is not a crime and should not be), the fact that the agency used against them was the ATF automatically proves that what happened should not have happened.

Why should it not have been the ATF (Alcohol Tobacco Firearms)?
I'd have thought you could figure that out.
The ATF has no legitimate reason to exist, because people have a right to own drugs and guns.

If I remember Waco correctly, the state had legitimate reasons for the raid (child abuse, statutory rape, stockpiling of illegal weapons [for the apocolypse]).
The only legitimate reason among those would be child abuse. On any count innocent until proven guilty, and the ATF would not have been the one called if there were legit evidence of child abuse.

And on wiki it says that most of the accusations of statutory rape floated about in the media were in fact over the age of consent :)


The OP was upset that tanks were used. The original raid did not include the use of tanks. They were forced to bring heavier force when the group opened fire on the federal officers. I think at that point the state is justified in protecting the general public against a violent sect of religious fanatics.
A violent, as in a sect that wishes to defend their rights, both human and according to amendment number 2 constitutionally recognized?
It's the sect that is protecting itself. You can't invade, and then claim you are "protecting people" when your invasion is resisted. If the sect had been shooting innocent people, you'd have a "protecting the general public" argument, but it wasn't, it was shooting home invaders.

Btw, military assets were apparently acquired on fraudulent grounds (a false accusation that Koresh was operating a meth lab), least according to wiki.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2009 9:49:17 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/9/2009 9:36:06 AM, Volkov wrote:
I equate Waco with an event that occurred in Canada in 1990.

Then, a small indian band northwest of Montreal had occupied a golf course and blocked off traffic going towards Ottawa, all in this little town called Oka. The occupiers had illegal weapons and were illegally occupying land
Obviously can't be equated then.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2009 9:57:19 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Let me ask you, R&R, does the right to bear arms include the right of a private citizen to own tanks or nuclear missiles? Are we agreed that there are reasonable limits on the right to bear arms, or would you claim that the right includes missiles and tanks?
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2009 9:59:59 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
As for the battle. The Branch Davidians could have handled the situation in a peaceful manner. They could have defended themselves in court about the accusations made by the state. They did not, instead they premeditated a violent response to the ATF's search and arrest warrant.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2009 10:03:42 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/9/2009 9:57:19 AM, JBlake wrote:
Let me ask you, R&R, does the right to bear arms include the right of a private citizen to own tanks or nuclear missiles? Are we agreed that there are reasonable limits on the right to bear arms, or would you claim that the right includes missiles and tanks?

The purpose of private arms is self-defense from criminals and tyrannical governments. Nuclear missiles are definitely useless for this purpose, they are useful only for foreign deterrence, which is not a private function, and blowing everything up, which is no one's function. Tanks are probably useless for this purpose, because they stand out and any tyrannical government that can't crush things that stand out won't last long anyway. So nukes are a definite no-no, and tanks a probable, the only possibility of a tank being legit is that it's so well concealed that no prosecution happens anyway.

This leaves assault weapons quite intact :).
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2009 10:05:28 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/9/2009 9:59:59 AM, JBlake wrote:
As for the battle. The Branch Davidians could have handled the situation in a peaceful manner. They could have defended themselves in court about the accusations made by the state.
Defend yourselves in court-- from people you already know the court agrees with?
That's like asking Hitler to defend you from Nazis.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2009 10:20:05 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
The courts are not always in support of the other branches of government...

The fact is, they could have handled the situation without firing on police forces. What you are advocating is the use of violence on police forces anytime you feel your rights are being violated.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2009 10:47:39 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/9/2009 10:20:05 AM, JBlake wrote:
The courts are not always in support of the other branches of government...
This time they are. They declared it in 1939, in US v Miller, by upholding the safety of the government rather than the individual as the standard for their interpretation of the 2nd amendment (and therefore that individuals had no rights, just privileges at the mercy of any random policeman.)

The fact is, they could have handled the situation without firing on police forces.
How? When you call something like that a fact, you ought to tell someone why you regard it as a fact :).

What you are advocating is the use of violence on police forces anytime you feel your rights are being violated.
Anytime your rights actually are being violated by those police, yes. Reason, not feelings, are the relevant standard. What else are you supposed to do? Maybe if the court hadn't outlined their policy on the matter so many years ago in a binding precedent, it might be practical to defend oneself in court, but that isn't the case as it stands. And even then that doesn't alter your right to self-defense, it simply outlines a practical alternative (which did not exist for the party in question).
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
USAPitBull63
Posts: 668
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2009 10:53:36 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
I was 12 years old when this all happened. I believe the last day of it was on April 19 or 20, which then became a violent pair of days for America in the 1990s (Waco; OK City Bombings; Columbine). Some, of course, will argue that's no coincidence.

The "Branch Davidians" (as they called themselves, correctly pointed out by JBlake) did have weapons, and there were reports of Koresh raping, sexually assaulting, and even (near the end) sacrificing children and women in the compound, and training them to assault non-believers (or those who tried to interfere with their actions).

Janet Reno, President Clinton's Attorney General, took some heat (no pun intended) for ordering the tanks to roll into the compound before maintaining stronger, better communication with the group (or exercising other options). The tanks, as reports stated, were more to scare those who could be saved out of the grips of those controlling them. (Insert your own ironic interpretation here, self-proclaimed anarchists.)

Maybe due to it being the dawn of Internet usage in private homes, which in turn made for lack of mass communication/news coverage compared to today---there wasn't as much outrage, from my personal recollection, about this Reno decision to use government force against civilians, as there was in 2000---when she ordered S.W.A.T. to infiltrate a family home housing 6-year-old, then-illegal alien/relative Elian Gonzalez (in order to return him to his father in Cuba). Unlike Waco, however, this was to forcefully uphold a court order.

Mainstream reports of Waco were that federal shots fired, but that only tank blasts were used to destroy unoccupied parts of the building. Any firing against Branch Davidians, of any kind---as was widely reported, was in self-defense, or at least to fight off armed, attacking members of the group. The tanks going in were caught on videotape, however; and like with any massive tragedy in America anymore (Columbine; 9/11, etc.), it didn't take long for other reports to surface claiming much more horrific events, on the parts of both the BD and government.

The massive fire that burned down the building and, as reported, was responsible for most of the BD deaths that final day, seemed to be the biggest story. It has since become basically a matter of "they said, they said" with both sides blaming the other for starting it, intentionally or inadvertently. (For example, I'm sure the video Rez mentioned blames the federal government, just as gov't blamed/s the BD.)

As for cult/not a cult, the fact that it was a "branch" connotes a cult, rather than full-fledged, mass, organized religion. Though the branch had, technically, existed for decades, its existence had always been controversial within its own faith (Protestantism, I believe). I suppose this aspect is somewhat subjective, but that's my thought---at least, for this rogue extension of the larger "Branch." Waco, TX, for a few weeks isn't the globe for thousands of years, either.

Rez, not to preach, but you're 17 (at least, so says your profile). Don't be so surprised that you're still learning how you feel toward the world. The next ten years will likely be even more influential than the last decade.

(Heck, I was still 3 years from voting for Al Gore for president when I was your age. Keep an open mind.)

Sorry for the long post, but those are my memories.
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2009 10:56:45 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/9/2009 10:47:39 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/9/2009 10:20:05 AM, JBlake wrote:
The courts are not always in support of the other branches of government...
This time they are. They declared it in 1939, in US v Miller, by upholding the safety of the government rather than the individual as the standard for their interpretation of the 2nd amendment (and therefore that individuals had no rights, just privileges at the mercy of any random policeman.)

The fact is, they could have handled the situation without firing on police forces.
How? When you call something like that a fact, you ought to tell someone why you regard it as a fact :).

What you are advocating is the use of violence on police forces anytime you feel your rights are being violated.
Anytime your rights actually are being violated by those police, yes. Reason, not feelings, are the relevant standard. What else are you supposed to do? Maybe if the court hadn't outlined their policy on the matter so many years ago in a binding precedent, it might be practical to defend oneself in court, but that isn't the case as it stands. And even then that doesn't alter your right to self-defense, it simply outlines a practical alternative (which did not exist for the party in question).

So, then, in your ideal world an individual can fire on police officers for attempting to arrest him for a number of things (such as selling drugs, or statutory rape [which you suggested ought not be a crime])?

For instance:
Police Officer sees an assault rifle in the back seat of a man's car. He attempts to arrest the man. You would advocate that that man fire on the police officer because the government (in your view -->) illegally prohibits ownership of assault rifles.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2009 11:11:48 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/9/2009 5:46:31 AM, regebro wrote:
At 8/9/2009 3:44:58 AM, Rezzealaux wrote:
Do they see people who try to say that Waco was a home invasion, do they see those as people who are conspiracy theorists and should be locked away in a torture chamber?
No. It was a home invasion, of sorts. I'm not sure why you see these things as opposites.
What I meant was, do the majority see people (who try to say Waco was a home invasion) as conspiracy theorists who should be locked away in a torture chamber?

I mean, I didn't know much about Waco before, and to be honest, before watching Waco: The Rules of Engagement, I was just a theoretical anarchist. Yeah, I don't agree with you here there and there, I think the state is just violence and violence is immoral blah blah blah... but now, it's so real to me. It's just... so real. I don't know another way to describe it.
You have had a moment where you realize something that fit's into what before was just a theory. Congratulations. Don't make too big deal of it. :) You have realized why the state is a bad thing. You have still (as you call yourself an anarchist) to realize why it's a good thing. It is, as most things, both.
No. There is nothing that can justify this kind of violence to me. It is not self defense. Not at all. Unless someone can show me all that footage was fake and that the Davidians were the one who rented a tank to attack themselves, I'm not going to think "Oh the USFG took the necessary actions but they made some mistakes here and there and it was unfortunate this and that happened", no, I'm not going to give them that. They first went in with 76 armed guys, and then later they went in with tanks. No, there's nothing that can justify violence. Nothing.

But anyways, enough of my ranting. I'm interested in what other people see Waco as.
It was a crazed religious sect, led by a crazed cult leader, that more or less by mistake ended up in a conflict with the ATF. The ATF, having no knowledge about neither sects in general, or this sect in particular, not only misjudged the situation, but almost all the things they tried to do to solve the stand-off made it worse, leading into an escalating craziness from the part of the sect and an escalating fear on the part of the ATF.
I think you should watch the video. It's very clear that the ATF knew what they were doing...

At 8/9/2009 8:09:53 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Though "Fearing the state" as such, as a result of this, is kind of like fearing all black people because one raped your friend. It's understandable, but not logical.
Ah... you're right.

At 8/9/2009 9:20:37 AM, JBlake wrote:
The OP was upset that tanks were used. The original raid did not include the use of tanks. They were forced to bring heavier force when the group opened fire on the federal officers. I think at that point the state is justified in protecting the general public against a violent sect of religious fanatics.
There's a lot of other things that you say and go on to say that I could respond to with what I've learned from the video, which I would really urge you to watch, but my stance is this: You can't protect "the people" by attacking part of the people. If you pledge to defend one hundred people, the moment you attack one of those one hundred people, you can no longer claim you are protecting them. No, "greater good" or utilitarianism doesn't work, if you're going to say you protect people, then you don't point a gun at their head.

The fact is, they could have handled the situation without firing on police forces. What you are advocating is the use of violence on police forces anytime you feel your rights are being violated.
I'm not sure about your stance on this, but if a bunch of armed sadistic thugs in costume come into my house, I think it's a viable argument that I can shoot. Doesn't matter if they're the army, or the mafia, or the police, or whatever, it's an armed invasion. It's not like the Davidians went into town terrorizing the population, no - the ATF came with an armed squad of 76. If that's a reasonable way to carry out a search warrant (when the owner had invited you to come in and you ignored it and instead came in firing), well, I don't know what's unjustified for the state.

At 8/9/2009 10:53:36 AM, USAPitBull63 wrote:
Rez, not to preach, but you're 17 (at least, so says your profile). Don't be so surprised that you're still learning how you feel toward the world. The next ten years will likely be even more influential than the last decade.
It's fine~ I love learning :D
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2009 12:05:26 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/9/2009 11:11:48 AM, Rezzealaux wrote:
No. It was a home invasion, of sorts. I'm not sure why you see these things as opposites.
What I meant was, do the majority see people (who try to say Waco was a home invasion) as conspiracy theorists who should be locked away in a torture chamber?

But you still do the same mistake of equating "home invasion" and "conspiracy theory". That's incorrect. Of course the majority does not see people who think ATF did something wrong with conspiracy theorists. Do they think the conspiracy theorists should be locked away in a crazy house? Yes, probably.

You have still (as you call yourself an anarchist) to realize why it's a good thing. It is, as most things, both.
No. There is nothing that can justify this kind of violence to me.

Just because you can drown in water, does not mean that washing yourself is a bad idea. Just because the state was wrong in this case, does not mean that the state is *always* negative.

I think you should watch the video. It's very clear that the ATF knew what they were doing...

I've watched it, and no, they didn't have a clue.
So prove me wrong, then.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2009 3:39:01 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/9/2009 9:49:17 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/9/2009 9:36:06 AM, Volkov wrote:
I equate Waco with an event that occurred in Canada in 1990.

Then, a small indian band northwest of Montreal had occupied a golf course and blocked off traffic going towards Ottawa, all in this little town called Oka. The occupiers had illegal weapons and were illegally occupying land
Obviously can't be equated then.

That is why I said after, the police were more concerned with the multitude of military-grade weapons being held by very fervent individuals. It can be equated in that sense.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2009 4:18:34 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Hmm...

I don't really get the anti-police/military position on this topic. The 'state' was going up against heavily armed civilians in Waco. The Wacomaniacs had turrets set up. They were in a fortress, literally. The Wacomaniacs were wanted for what.. like 100 different crimes. The police had no choice.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2009 6:20:38 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/9/2009 10:56:45 AM, JBlake wrote:

Police Officer sees an assault rifle in the back seat of a man's car. He attempts to arrest the man. You would advocate that that man fire on the police officer because the government (in your view -->) illegally prohibits ownership of assault rifles.
I wouldn't advocate that he actually do it, it's a good way to die. But I would recognize him as in the right for doing so.

That is why I said after, the police were more concerned with the multitude of military-grade weapons being held by very fervent individuals. It can be equated in that sense.
In other words, it can be equated assuming their nonvalid concerns were valid :).

I don't really get the anti-police/military position on this topic. The 'state' was going up against heavily armed civilians in Waco. The Wacomaniacs had turrets set up. They were in a fortress, literally. The Wacomaniacs were wanted for what.. like 100 different crimes. The police had no choice.
The police might not have (except the choice not to be police for that state), but the state had a choice not to criminalize 100 different things in which no one is a victim. They didn't take it.

Put it this way. There are lots of police, in police stations, which are designed to be fortresses-lite for the modern world (which doesn't look kindly on builders of fortresses non-lite). I want them for their crimes against liberty-- not just 100 different crimes, but over 9000. Do I have no choice but to bomb my local police station?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2009 8:12:15 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/9/2009 6:20:38 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
That is why I said after, the police were more concerned with the multitude of military-grade weapons being held by very fervent individuals. It can be equated in that sense.
In other words, it can be equated assuming their nonvalid concerns were valid :).

I'm fairly sure such concerns were valid. You may feel that men holding up loaded rifles around civilians and children, located in the middle of a tense and dangerous situation, is perfectly fine, but the police rightfully don't.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2009 8:26:25 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/9/2009 6:20:38 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Put it this way. There are lots of police, in police stations, which are designed to be fortresses-lite for the modern world (which doesn't look kindly on builders of fortresses non-lite). I want them for their crimes against liberty-- not just 100 different crimes, but over 9000. Do I have no choice but to bomb my local police station?

The police don't make laws, they enforce them. Bomb your state legislature or Congress, not the police.

Also, your way of dealing with (IN YOUR OPINION) unjust laws is violence? People have opposing viewpoints than you. You can't just always assume you're right.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2009 8:36:50 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/9/2009 8:26:25 PM, Nags wrote:
At 8/9/2009 6:20:38 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Put it this way. There are lots of police, in police stations, which are designed to be fortresses-lite for the modern world (which doesn't look kindly on builders of fortresses non-lite). I want them for their crimes against liberty-- not just 100 different crimes, but over 9000. Do I have no choice but to bomb my local police station?

The police don't make laws, they enforce them. Bomb your state legislature or Congress, not the police.

Also, your way of dealing with (IN YOUR OPINION) unjust laws is violence? People have opposing viewpoints than you. You can't just always assume you're right.

No, the police force shouldn't enact injustices just because they're told to. Not only that, they themselves commit injustices, brutality, false accusations, unfairness, etc. If someone told you to shoot your friend and you did, it would be your fault for shooting your friend, not the person who told you to.

Speaking of which, I just heard today (not sure when it happened) that a little girl got a ticket for selling lemonade on the sidewalk for not having a proper license. I thought this was a capitalist society (not that that's a good thing).

.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2009 9:03:37 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/9/2009 8:12:15 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 8/9/2009 6:20:38 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
That is why I said after, the police were more concerned with the multitude of military-grade weapons being held by very fervent individuals. It can be equated in that sense.
In other words, it can be equated assuming their nonvalid concerns were valid :).

I'm fairly sure such concerns were valid. You may feel that men holding up loaded rifles around civilians and children, located in the middle of a tense and dangerous situation, is perfectly fine, but the police rightfully don't.
People hold up loaded rifles around civilians and children all the time, it's called being at a rifle range ^_^.

And the tense and dangerous situation in Waco anyway was created 100% by the police.

The police don't make laws, they enforce them. Bomb your state legislature or Congress, not the police.
Bomb both. Both are on the same side. Both willingly joined that side. You can kill Hitler, but that doesn't stop you from fighting off the German Army too.

Also, your way of dealing with (IN YOUR OPINION) unjust laws is violence?
Laws, by definition,are enforced by violence. How else do you propose to deal with violence, but violence?

People have opposing viewpoints than you.
This is not an argument.

You can't just always assume you're right.
You can conclude it.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2009 9:05:43 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/9/2009 8:26:25 PM, Nags wrote:
Also, your way of dealing with (IN YOUR OPINION) unjust laws is violence?

Well it wouldn't exactly be unjust, as they're pointing a gun at me anyways...
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2009 9:07:59 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Incidentally, the only alternative I can think of to acting as though you are right in acting as though you are wrong. Doing this consistently causes either inaction or taking actions the opposite of those you believe should be taken. Either is fatal within mere days.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2009 9:09:19 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/9/2009 9:07:59 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Incidentally, the only alternative I can think of to acting as though you are right in acting as though you are wrong. Doing this consistently causes either inaction or taking actions the opposite of those you believe should be taken. Either is fatal within mere days.

I'm sorry, that looked like a jumbled mess to me. Could you re-explain?
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2009 9:11:25 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/9/2009 9:03:37 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
People hold up loaded rifles around civilians and children all the time, it's called being at a rifle range ^_^.

The difference between a rifle range and being behind a blockade of cars in the middle of a ex-urban street while things are on fire... come on, do I really have to go on?

And the tense and dangerous situation in Waco anyway was created 100% by the police.

Yes, as they set up the fortress and armed the Davidians and told them to put women and children in harms way and on and on... you cannot blame everything on the police, or the government, or whomever. At times, people are just stupid, and that stupidity is what creates situations like Waco.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2009 9:18:28 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/9/2009 9:11:25 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 8/9/2009 9:03:37 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
And the tense and dangerous situation in Waco anyway was created 100% by the police.

Yes, as they set up the fortress and armed the Davidians and told them to put women and children in harms way and on and on... you cannot blame everything on the police, or the government, or whomever. At times, people are just stupid, and that stupidity is what creates situations like Waco.

There is something intellectually dishonest about this response, but I cannot exactly put my finger on it.

The fact that "At times, people are just stupid" is the EXACT reason why we cannot have a government. If there is a chance that people might be irrational and do things they wouldn't normally do, then that is exactly why we cannot have a government, as it is the only way that people can get ahold of a monopoly on such weapons of mass destruction. In an anarchy, if people went on sprees there would be other people/corporations with the same ability to stop things relatively quickly. Nothing like this could ever happen. It requires a monopoly on violence.

It is the existence of government that leads to these things. Why can't I blame it all on them?
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2009 9:21:15 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/9/2009 9:11:25 PM, Volkov wrote:



And the tense and dangerous situation in Waco anyway was created 100% by the police.

Yes, as they set up the fortress
Creating a secure building creates a dangerous situation? When no one who doesn't like it has to go anywhere near the building? That's like saying creating a safe guarantees that someone will rob you.

and armed the Davidians
Armaments aren't automatically "creators of tense situations". And a secure building of a religious cult is far more comparable to a firing range than an urban street. Incidentally, if you hold that loaded weapons on urban streets are automatically dangerous, you hold that there should be no police or that police should be unarmd.

and told them to put women and children in harms way
Wasn't "harms way" before the invasion now was it?

I'm sorry, that looked like a jumbled mess to me. Could you re-explain?
Nags said "You can't just always assume you're right."( when picking a course of action). The alternative assumption is that you are wrong. What happens when you consistently act on the assumption that you are wrong? A. You don't take action. If you never take any action, you don't live (you don't eat). or B, you take actions that are the opposite of what your knowledge would indicate (You don't eat from the pantry, you eat the poisons in the bottles beneath the sink), and therefore you also die.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.