FallRate 0 #26 July 22, 2004 Quotehe's putting an Arab/Musliim face on the Waco issue Bullshit. To do that would simply be: "Would your opinion on Waco change if it had been a group of Muslims?" Bill's hypothetical situation bears no resemblance to the incident at Waco. If he believes it does, it only demonstrates Bill's willingness to offer opinions based on ignorance. FallRate Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #27 July 22, 2004 Quote> Once fired upon, they should use whatever force is necessary to take the place down. If the result was that most of his followers were killed, would that be acceptable, or should government agents involved in the raid be punished for their deaths? Ask Clinton - Sounds like Waco to me.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #28 July 22, 2004 Troll! -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #29 July 22, 2004 QuoteLet's say an FBI agent comes across evidence of a terrorist camp in the Arizona desert. He investigates and discovers that: -their leader, a radical islamic activist, gains attention when he publically states the US is "the great satan" whom he must oppose. He is described by many as unstable, and has changed his name at least once. -this leader once engaged in a gun battle with a rival to prove who "the true son of Allah" is. -the camp is composed of his followers. -they have amassed a large number of illegal weapons in their camp. -they are buying chemicals which can be used to make weapons. -they are training there. The FBI obtains warrants and military assistance. They arrive at the camp and are fired upon. What should the next step be? (I would be most interested in hearing the comments from the "glass f****ing parking lot!" crowd.) I'd first want to have some more confirmation than the one agent's investigation. I think we've learned that from the business at Waco, Texas. I'd then want to see if there was an easier way to arrest the leader without (a) a big conflagration and possible loss of life, and (b) a media circus. If the leader was given to taking trips into town for supplies (or perhaps to make a few jumps in Eloy), then I'd nab him there, and avoid the conflict. It would probably occur to the FBI to do this as well, since they've doubtless learned from the PR nightmare after Waco that less is more. Somehow I doubt that your final supposition (i.e. they arrive and are fired upon) would actually happen. It seems a bit unfair to suggest that it would and ask us to respond to a hypothetical so contrived. I'd suggest that they, in fact, _not_ arrive, and therefore not be fired upon. I'd also like to establish the citizenship of the folks in question. If they are US citizens, I'd tend toward a more cautious approach. If they were foreign nationals, this actually looks like a pretty clear invasion force, in which case the "glass parking lot" probably isn't such a bad idea. A foreign military encampment made without permission within US borders is, in my opinion, a de facto declaration of war. If that's the case, "shoot first and ask questions later" might be the right course of action. Isn't Arizona just one step removed from a glass parking lot anyway?-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,110 #30 July 22, 2004 > You ARE being a troll, here, in that you're trying to bait those of us > right-wing-wackos who condemn the Waco raid into supporting the same > thing when the subject is an Islamic extremist. It is quite true that I may be forcing some people to think outside their comfort zones. If is does cause you discomfort to consider the question, ask yourself why, and ask yourself if you use the same criteria for Islamic militants as you use for Davidian militants. >If this Islamic bad guy could be picked up in town in an uneventful >arrest, the rest of the shit would likely never hit the fan. Agreed. But if the FBI had screwed up and not arrested the Islamic guy when they had a chance, would you advocate just leaving them alone after they had fired on US officers? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,110 #31 July 22, 2004 >Are the alleged terrorists US citizens? Most of them seem to be. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,110 #32 July 22, 2004 >Bill's hypothetical situation bears no resemblance to the incident at Waco. Ah, I see the perceptions on both sides of this issue are about as far apart as opinions on Bush's actions in Iraq. I know there are people on this board who simply do not believe _anything_ a radical islamic militant says, and in any scenario which pits such a person against the US, the US can do no wrong. Waco is a situation in which the government could do no right. Even when fired upon, they are later castigated for defending themselves. I agree that the Waco disaster could have been handled a LOT better. But are there people here who believe that when a group of armed islamic militants, who are known to be hoarding weapons and chemicals in a training compound, open fire on US officers, the first response of the officers should be to back down? I know there are a great number of people here who believe such action should result in the immediate use of overwhelming force ("glass F***ing parking lot) and I also know there are a great number of people who feel the government in the case of Waco was completely wrong in using such force against the Davidians. It's interesting that there is such a divergence of opinions, a divergence that appears to be at least partly based on the religion of the militants. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallRate 0 #33 July 22, 2004 Waco is a situation in which the government could do no right. Even when fired upon, they are later castigated for defending themselves. *** It has never been determined which side at Waco fired first. Both sides claim the other did and there is no video evidence to support or refute either claim. But...there is one fact that sheds a bit of light on the situation (and proves your comparison faulty): The Branch Davidians called the local police during the shootout and begged that they call the assault off. The ATF refused. However, when the ATF ran out of ammo and asked for a cease-fire, the Branch Davidians honored it. The Branch Davidians could have killed every single ATF agent that day, but didn't. And regarding the ATF's claim that they did not initiate the hostilities: They also claimed that they did not shoot, from a helicopter, an unarmed 17-year-old boy who was working on the water tower. But there is video of that. One more thing. The irony of this post is that if the Branch Davidians had been Muslim, you would probably have looked a little deeper into this. But the ATF picked their target well: a group of whacko Christians, who gives a shit about them!? FallRate Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,110 #34 July 22, 2004 >It has never been determined which side at Waco fired first. Doesn't really matter. If you're facing down a cop, and he says "drop the gun or I shoot!" and shooting begins - the cop is not obligated to prove that the other guy fired first before he is allowed to return fire. >The Branch Davidians called the local police during the shootout and >begged that they call the assault off. The ATF refused. However, when the >ATF ran out of ammo and asked for a cease-fire, the Branch Davidians >honored it. The Branch Davidians could have killed every single ATF agent >that day, but didn't. So? They stopped shooting for a while. Should the ATF have gone home? If a group could have killed lots of people, but instead just shoots at them and misses, should they be absolved of any wrongdoing? I agree that the government screwed up a lot that day. But once ANYONE opens fire on US officials, they forfeit their right to life - no matter what their religion. >The irony of this post is that if the Branch Davidians had been Muslim, >you would probably have looked a little deeper into this. Are you kidding??? If they'd been Muslim, and this had happened last year, Bush himself would be taking credit for ridding the US of a murderous group of dangerous terrorists, and protecting america from their evil plans to kill innocent americans. And US gun groups would be saying "if you just enforced the gun laws on the books, these terrorists wouldn't have had these weapons. Thank god the ATF had access to the weapons needed to stop them!" There is even someone on this board who thinks it's a good idea to wipe out Islam. I find it very hard to believe that he would protest a government action that helped accomplish that goal. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #35 July 22, 2004 Quote Are you kidding??? If they'd been Muslim, and this had happened last year, Bush himself would be taking credit for ridding the US of a murderous group of dangerous terrorists, and protecting america from their evil plans to kill innocent americans. That is akin to blaming Clinton for Tim McVay's crimes - com on - You know that is complete Bull shit! IF they were muslims or Jews - or any other religion WTFCares - if they have weapons, and are actively seeking to cause harm, the government should step in and use whatever force neccessary. I'm not 100 % in agree mwnt with what happened in WACO - but THEY DID FIRE WEAPONS AT THE US OFFICIALS! I tell you what - go out side - aim a weapon at the nearest cop and fire -= just barely missing him and see what happens.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #36 July 22, 2004 Quote I agree that the government screwed up a lot that day. But once ANYONE opens fire on US officials, they forfeit their right to life - no matter what their religion. Intriguing policy claim from a noted civil libertarian. Rights to self defense be damned, A nice offshoot of this would be that if an FBI agent wanted to take out his target, he might instead choose to shoot, say his pregnant wife, and then when he comes charging out to return fire, he could righteously, in your viewpoint, be gunned down as well. Not in my country. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #37 July 22, 2004 QuoteWaco is a situation in which the government could do no right. Because...they did no right. Maybe that's the reason. A more parallel scenario - Al-Zarqawi has a bunch of armed militants and has vowed to fight. He is known to leave his compound, unarmed, and go into town. He has no bodyguards, weapons, and goes into shops. He is in close proximity to groups of armed people who have the authority to arrest him 3 times a week. As the decision-maker/planner, you: a- Arrest him quietly while he is having breakfast. b- Wait until he goes back to his compound, alert him that you are going to attack, storm in and expect him to patiently be slaughtered. This is a better comparison to Waco. Personally, I think the Branch-Davidians were just as nuts as the Muslims. My rejection of the govt action at Waco had nothing to do with religion. I dislike all religion equally. The arrest of Al-Zarqawi would be a goldmine of information also. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,110 #38 July 22, 2004 >A nice offshoot of this would be that if an FBI agent wanted to take out his > target, he might instead choose to shoot, say his pregnant wife, and then >when he comes charging out to return fire, he could righteously, in your >viewpoint, be gunned down as well. If the FBI agent did that with no provocation, he should go to jail for it at the very least. And if the guy points a gun at the FBI agent, he dies. I would not support any law that says any US government agent (cops, soldiers) must allow themselves to be shot and killed while on duty. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,110 #39 July 22, 2004 >As the decision-maker/planner, you: >a- Arrest him quietly while he is having breakfast. >b- Wait until he goes back to his compound, alert him that you are going > to attack, storm in and expect him to patiently be slaughtered. A) is infinitely better. But let's say you screw up and let him go back to his compound. Which is a better choice: 1. Get backup and go to the compound to arrest him there 2. Give up; hope he doesn't do anything bad. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #40 July 22, 2004 CNN - Ruby Ridge QuoteFBI SWAT team members told a Senate panel Friday that they were shocked by the "shoot-on-sight" rules in effect during the FBI's 11-day siege of white separatist Randy Weaver's cabin in 1992. "My reaction is 'you've got to be kidding,'" agent Donald Kusulas told the committee. Agent Peter King said that his reaction was "that's crazy; that's ridiculous," and both men testified that they decided not to follow rules which allowed them to shoot on sight at any armed, adult male at the scene. Maybe they thought it was wrong to assassinate American citizens. That's not the Janet Reno way of doing it, however. QuoteThe standard FBI rules calls for use of lethal force only for self-protection or if others are in imminent danger. QuoteOn August 22, an FBI sniper shot Vicki Weaver as she stood behind the door of the cabin with an infant daughter. QuoteFourteen-year-old Sam Weaver and agent William Degan died the previous day during a gunfight that erupted when agents, young Weaver and family friend Kevin Harris clashed on the Weaver property. Agents testified that Sam Weaver may have been killed accidentally by Harris QuoteSubcommittee chairman Senator Arlen Specter (R-Pennsylvania) said Friday that he would call Attorney General Janet Reno to testify next week. Specter wants Reno to explain her approval of the promotion of Larry Potts to deputy FBI director earlier this year. Potts was subsequently demoted and suspended, pending a criminal investigation of an alleged cover-up of the FBI's actions during the Ruby Ridge incident. What happened to Reno? Zip. If Janet Reno sends people to your house with shoot-on-sight orders, or tells them to storm your house... you'll probably be ok. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #41 July 22, 2004 QuoteIf the FBI agent did that with no provocation, he should go to jail for it at the very least. That is why the FBI agents at Ruby Ridge disobeyed the shoot-on-sight order. It was illegal that someone gave that order. But no one went to jail for giving it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #42 July 22, 2004 QuoteBut let's say you screw up and let him go back to his compound. That is my point. Nobody did screw up. Someone didn't want a peaceful resolution. Other agencies are in law enforcement. Instead of coming up with hypothetical situation to fit the outcome you want to present, why not discuss reality and the facts of an existing event? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallRate 0 #43 July 22, 2004 Am I kidding? No. QuoteSo? They stopped shooting for a while. Should the ATF have gone home? They stopped completely. This example was given to show that the Branch Davidians were not out to kill all of the ATF agents. If they had been, all of the agents would be dead. Also, if the Branch Davidians had initiated the shooting, why did they stop? QuoteDoesn't really matter. If you're facing down a cop, and he says "drop the gun or I shoot!" and shooting begins - the cop is not obligated to prove that the other guy fired first before he is allowed to return fire. Yes, it does matter. You have once again assumed that the ATF was returning fire, which is unknown. You also assume that there was a standoff. There was no armed standoff prior to the shooting: no opportunity for the ATF to say "drop your gun, or we'll shoot." QuoteBut once ANYONE opens fire on US officials, they forfeit their right to life Not true. (And again you assume that the Branch Davidians fired first). We have the right to defend ourselves, even against US officials. QuoteIf they'd been Muslim, and this had happened last year They weren't; it didn't. If it does, we can discuss it. QuoteThere is even someone on this board who thinks it's a good idea to wipe out Islam. I find it very hard to believe that he would protest a government action that helped accomplish that goal. Maybe you should start a thread with that topic revealed instead of artificially embedding it into another. Greenies shouldn't troll. FallRate Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crwmike 0 #44 July 22, 2004 QuoteQuoteBut let's say you screw up and let him go back to his compound. That is my point. Nobody did screw up. Someone didn't want a peaceful resolution. Other agencies are in law enforcement. Instead of coming up with hypothetical situation to fit the outcome you want to present, why not discuss reality and the facts of an existing event? Search of the compound and seizure of any evidence would have been of much firmer constitutional grounds. It's a common tactic in law enforcement to wait until the suspect has entered his/her home. Then, claiming search and seizure incident to a lawful arrest, they have more legal justification for searching the compound. Of course, now, this matters little. All the govt has to do is claim 'terrorist' and they can do pretty much whatever they want. Michael Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallRate 0 #45 July 22, 2004 QuoteInstead of coming up with hypothetical situation to fit the outcome you want to present, why not discuss reality and the facts of an existing event? Simple: hypothetical situations allow Bill to discuss events he has not researched. FallRate Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #46 July 22, 2004 Quote>As the decision-maker/planner, you: >a- Arrest him quietly while he is having breakfast. >b- Wait until he goes back to his compound, alert him that you are going > to attack, storm in and expect him to patiently be slaughtered. A) is infinitely better. But let's say you screw up and let him go back to his compound. Which is a better choice: 1. Get backup and go to the compound to arrest him there 2. Give up; hope he doesn't do anything bad. C: wait. Unless you screw up so badly as to alarm him he'll come back out.. Even alarmed, if properly contained he is of little threat to anyone....____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skybytch 273 #47 July 22, 2004 QuoteGreenies shouldn't troll. Once again. Why not? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,584 #48 July 22, 2004 QuoteC: wait. Unless you screw up so badly as to alarm him he'll come back out.. Even alarmed, if properly contained he is of little threat to anyone.... Ding ding ding -- we have a winner. Just remember the procrastinator's credo: "There is nothing so important that it can't be put off until tommorrow" Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,110 #49 July 22, 2004 > Also, if the Branch Davidians had initiated the shooting, why did they stop? Do you have an answer? Perhaps they realized they needed a better plan than just firing away at US agents. Or were reloading. Or were looking for ammo. But the final answer is that you don't know. Neither did the officers on the scene. >Not true. (And again you assume that the Branch Davidians fired first). We >have the right to defend ourselves, even against US officials. You can believe that if you choose. I will always be against any feel-good nonsense that say a cop has to allow himself to be shot, rather than defend himself. I think if you knew any you'd feel differently. There is plenty of justice to be had in our courts. That's the place to pursue any complaints against a police officer you have. If you have a gun, and you decide to become judge, jury and executioner towards a cop you dislike - expect to be killed. We (rightly) place a high value on the lives of our police and miltary. It is fortunate more people do not believe as you do; we'd see a lot of dead cops in our streets if they were required to not defend themselves when fired upon. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #50 July 22, 2004 QuoteIf you have a gun, and you decide to become judge, jury and executioner towards a cop you dislike - expect to be killed. Or a superstar embraced by nut job celebrities. (Mumia Abu Jamal). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)