Just Plain Ruff Posted August 25, 2011 Posted August 25, 2011 Wow 27 pages, that has to be a record. You guys know how i feel about muslims so I do not support the mosque and ground zero, but what do you guys think about the same controversy that is going on in Murfreesboro Tennessee. There is a mosque that has been there 30 years and they want to build a huge new one, and the locals are not happy. I think 60 minutes did a story on it too. http://www.nytimes.c...s/31mosque.html Is it right to allow all other churchs to build, but not let the muslim churchs build ? Nope it isn't right. If a church or any other organization wants to build, they should be able to build, barring legal and regulatory restrictions.
paramedicmike Posted August 25, 2011 Posted August 25, 2011 Was Koresh a terrorist? Did he ever commit an act of terrorism? Who killed innocent women and children at Waco? I would be more inclined to think the terrorist in that case were Clinton and Reno with their Jack Booted thugs. Is this a serious question? Sexual assault? Accusations of rape? Using religion as a means of controlling people so he could take advantage of them? Who ordered the burning of the building and subsequent murder of most of the people inside? If that doesn't constitute terrorism then I'm not sure what does. I suppose next you're going to argue Timothy McVeigh wasn't a terrorist?
DFIB Posted August 25, 2011 Posted August 25, 2011 Is this a serious question? Sexual assault? Accusations of rape? Using religion as a means of controlling people so he could take advantage of them? Who ordered the burning of the building and subsequent murder of most of the people inside? If that doesn't constitute terrorism then I'm not sure what does. I suppose next you're going to argue Timothy McVeigh wasn't a terrorist? Yes, it is a real question. Koresh was an alleged to be a lot of stuff that he was never convicted of because the ATF burned him to death along with women and children. He never committed an act of terrorism. Mc Veigh on the other hand did commit an act of terrorism that he was convicted of. You do see the difference between fact and emotional hearsay, right? I mean most of your post are pretty factual.
paramedicmike Posted August 25, 2011 Posted August 25, 2011 Who burned him to death? That fire started inside their compound and was set by members of the cult. As for never committing an act of terrorism, there is enough evidence that says Koresh fathered children with teen age girls. Not teen as in older than 18. Teen age like mid-teens. He even admitted as much before he died. Sexual abuse is a form of terrorism and this guy played it for all it was worth. True, he was never tried or convicted of the multitude of crimes he was accused of. He, or his followers, made sure that he wouldn't stand trial. But one doesn't need to be tried and convicted to be a terrorist.
DFIB Posted August 26, 2011 Posted August 26, 2011 Who burned him to death? That fire started inside their compound and was set by members of the cult. The fire only started after the ATF drove a tank through one of the walls. Do you think they called the electric and gas companies to mark the lines first? As for never committing an act of terrorism, there is enough evidence that says Koresh fathered children with teen age girls. Not teen as in older than 18. Teen age like mid-teens. He even admitted as much before he died. Sexual abuse is a form of terrorism and this guy played it for all it was worth. You are very galant for defending the kids he abused. He was a horrible person, a pervert. He deserved to spend his life in jail two lives in jail. But none of those things make him a terrorist. True, he was never tried or convicted of the multitude of crimes he was accused of. He, or his followers, made sure that he wouldn't stand trial. But one doesn't need to be tried and convicted to be a terrorist. Very true that one doesn't have to be convicted to be a terrorist but they do have to commit an act of terrorism. How many suicide bombers have ever been convicted? Even so every one of them are terrorist because they commited an act of terrorism.
paramedicmike Posted August 26, 2011 Posted August 26, 2011 The fire only started after the ATF drove a tank through one of the walls. Do you think they called the electric and gas companies to mark the lines first? The electricity had been shut off for days. I've not seen anything to indicate there were natural gas lines involved in this event. As all utilities had been shut off to the compound, even telephone lines, one would think that the Feds would cut natural gas lines, too. However, not wanting to make any assumptions, and not having seen anything to confirm or deny this I don't want to speculate too much with regards to this. All of this, of course, is independent of arson investigators determining that three fires minimum were started in different areas of the compound at the same time. A tank punching holes in a wall, well before the fires were started, doesn't start three fires simultaneously. They started the fires. There is evidence of accelerant use. You are very galant for defending the kids he abused. He was a horrible person, a pervert. He deserved to spend his life in jail two lives in jail. But none of those things make him a terrorist. You don't think so? Forcing children to have sex with him and bear his children under threat of banishment to hell isn't terrorism? This wasn't a case of systematically terrorizing one child. This was terrorizing a group of children who had no means to protect themselves with threats of rejection, condemnation and ostracisation. He used fear to manipulate and control the kids (if not some of the adults). Just because this took place in a small group doesn't lessen the impact that such abuse placed upon these kids. This was done for a political gain within the organization to cement his (Koresh's) role as leader of the group. Very true that one doesn't have to be convicted to be a terrorist but they do have to commit an act of terrorism. How many suicide bombers have ever been convicted? Even so every one of them are terrorist because they commited an act of terrorism. I'm curious as to why you don't think this was terrorism.
DFIB Posted August 26, 2011 Posted August 26, 2011 The electricity had been shut off for days. I've not seen anything to indicate there were natural gas lines involved in this event. As all utilities had been shut off to the compound, even telephone lines, one would think that the Feds would cut natural gas lines, too. However, not wanting to make any assumptions, and not having seen anything to confirm or deny this I don't want to speculate too much with regards to this. All of this, of course, is independent of arson investigators determining that three fires minimum were started in different areas of the compound at the same time. A tank punching holes in a wall, well before the fires were started, doesn't start three fires simultaneously. They started the fires. There is evidence of accelerant use. You are right, you caught me speculating but .... Janet Reno screwed up Waco from the start. They could have taken Koresh a lot of times without causing a standoff. You found evidence of arson, good. If the electricity they would have been using some kind of fuel for light, which would explain accelerants. Might have had generators. Rural Texas would have had propane tanks and not gas lines that could be turned off. Clinton could fix anything and was corrupt enough to do it. I think they assaulted a building full of children with a tank out of political expediency and fixed the results. I haven’t googled and probably won’t. I am kind of impressed with my memory of the event. You don't think so? Forcing children to have sex with him and bear his children under threat of banishment to hell isn't terrorism? This wasn't a case of systematically terrorizing one child. This was terrorizing a group of children who had no means to protect themselves with threats of rejection, condemnation and ostracisation. He used fear to manipulate and control the kids (if not some of the adults). . I am pickin’ up what you are throwin’ down. Koresh was scum. He probably wouldn’t have gotten the death penalty but he should have at least gotten what they gave that other pervert they convicted last week. You know the one that married those little girls. He will die in prison and good riddance. Just because this took place in a small group doesn't lessen the impact that such abuse placed upon these kids. This was done for a political gain within the organization to cement his (Koresh's) role as leader of the group. I don't remember Koresh as being the leader of a political organization or running for office. He was a seclusionist because of all the evil shennanigans he was doing in the compound. I'm curious as to why you don't think this was terrorism. I think we are thinking of two different things. I was thinking along the lines of the definitions put forth by NIMS, FEMA and US law, primarily because those are the definitions that I am familiar with. I don’t know what the law would call what Koresh did. Rape, coercion, crimes against humanity, but not terrorism.
paramedicmike Posted August 26, 2011 Posted August 26, 2011 Gotcha. Just a couple of things before letting this go as I think we're only going to wind up talking in circles. Janet Reno screwed up Waco from the start. It would have been particularly difficult for Reno to have screwed it up from the start when the initial raid took place on 28 Feb 93 and she wasn't confirmed Attorney General until 11 March 93. Clinton could fix anything and was corrupt enough to do it. I think they assaulted a building full of children with a tank out of political expediency and fixed the results. I haven’t googled and probably won’t. I am kind of impressed with my memory of the event. Um... sure. I am pickin’ up what you are throwin’ down. Koresh was scum. He probably wouldn’t have gotten the death penalty but he should have at least gotten what they gave that other pervert they convicted last week. You know the one that married those little girls. He will die in prison and good riddance. Warren Jeffs? That's a whole other ball of wax. Although, I don't think we'll disagree on the last part of your comment. I don't remember Koresh as being the leader of a political organization or running for office. He was a seclusionist because of all the evil shennanigans he was doing in the compound. I think we are thinking of two different things. I was thinking along the lines of the definitions put forth by NIMS, FEMA and US law, primarily because those are the definitions that I am familiar with. I don’t know what the law would call what Koresh did. Rape, coercion, crimes against humanity, but not terrorism. In 1993? Probably not. By today's standards? I wouldn't be so sure. Anyway, thanks for the distraction. I needed the break from studying for finals.
DFIB Posted August 26, 2011 Posted August 26, 2011 Ha! The Reno dates are priceless. I guess the memory just aint what it used to be. I hadn't thought of those events in a long time. I do enjoy a good conspiracy theory. What are your finals for? I am studying for NREMT.
Recommended Posts