Can someone please educate me about Waco and Ruby Ridge?
- Thread starter BHPshooter
- Start date
- Status
again, time to move on...
I accept responsible/sworn testamony over un-sworn testamony and observation whenever un-contested facts are lacking. It seems that many of the books and video's written about WACO and Ruby Ridge enjoy less than universal credibility and acceptance by the public, as does the Government's version. You may be correct in your conclusions about Ruby Ridge and WACO. But since the people who were there can't agree with any certainty about all the causes and events, how can you be certain? I guess like religion, its a matter of faith, not reason.
"masterful use of inuendo and manipulation, a truly excellent propaganda piece. Unfortunately, this work by people I have no reason to rely upon contradicts the evidence uncovered by Congress (although they quote selected segments out of context), and the evidence (even the negative evidence) reported by the Treasury Department. The Justice Department, unfortunately, whitewashed the FBI's actions with a "nobody did anything wrong" report. Nevertheless, the contrast between evidence supported by facts, and the slanted foolishness of this video, is astonishing."
"poorly organized, poorly edited and very biased "account" of the events surrounding Waco."
"adolecent "whining" about how hard life is and how much easier it gets when you have a "leader" who makes decisions for you."
"particularly disturbed by the caption on the last of a set of photographs in the middle of the book that is thoroughly inaccurate, and there seems to me to be a bit more than inadvertance at work here."
"Get the facts straight!"
"he seems to believe the Weavers' account of what transpired more than the government's."
"The author does have a decidedly pro-Davidian bias to his writing so it is not an evenhanded version of the story"
"Perfect example of how easily facts can be manipulated, to appear as the truth. How truths can be altered, yet appear as if they have not. And finally, how hard many will work, how far they will go, in attempts to turn the American People against our Government."
" The FBI murdered the women and children at Waco and got away with it, thanks in large part, apparently, to the shameful efforts of corporate media executives to keep the American people in the dark about what really happened."
"The people who wrote bad reviews on this because they said its false are idoits."
"Thus, this documentary is slander against the US government and lies about the tragic fate of the Branch Davidians."
I accept responsible/sworn testamony over un-sworn testamony and observation whenever un-contested facts are lacking. It seems that many of the books and video's written about WACO and Ruby Ridge enjoy less than universal credibility and acceptance by the public, as does the Government's version. You may be correct in your conclusions about Ruby Ridge and WACO. But since the people who were there can't agree with any certainty about all the causes and events, how can you be certain? I guess like religion, its a matter of faith, not reason.
"masterful use of inuendo and manipulation, a truly excellent propaganda piece. Unfortunately, this work by people I have no reason to rely upon contradicts the evidence uncovered by Congress (although they quote selected segments out of context), and the evidence (even the negative evidence) reported by the Treasury Department. The Justice Department, unfortunately, whitewashed the FBI's actions with a "nobody did anything wrong" report. Nevertheless, the contrast between evidence supported by facts, and the slanted foolishness of this video, is astonishing."
"poorly organized, poorly edited and very biased "account" of the events surrounding Waco."
"adolecent "whining" about how hard life is and how much easier it gets when you have a "leader" who makes decisions for you."
"particularly disturbed by the caption on the last of a set of photographs in the middle of the book that is thoroughly inaccurate, and there seems to me to be a bit more than inadvertance at work here."
"Get the facts straight!"
"he seems to believe the Weavers' account of what transpired more than the government's."
"The author does have a decidedly pro-Davidian bias to his writing so it is not an evenhanded version of the story"
"Perfect example of how easily facts can be manipulated, to appear as the truth. How truths can be altered, yet appear as if they have not. And finally, how hard many will work, how far they will go, in attempts to turn the American People against our Government."
" The FBI murdered the women and children at Waco and got away with it, thanks in large part, apparently, to the shameful efforts of corporate media executives to keep the American people in the dark about what really happened."
"The people who wrote bad reviews on this because they said its false are idoits."
"Thus, this documentary is slander against the US government and lies about the tragic fate of the Branch Davidians."
I can repond to the questions as I have been but a lack of fact-based data precludes responsible answers. Who/what determines what the "right " answer is? Third hand unsworn contested accounts? An absolute/responsible conclusion on the events (and their causes) that occurred at Ruby Ridge and WACO are as of yet impossible to arrive at and may never be. So like this week's weather, gather what you feel is the best data available and make-up your own mind but don't take it personal (wishful thinking?) if I don't accept your data and disagree with your conclusions. You make a great to-do about your "questions" if you feel you have the (fact based, uncontested)answers, say so and quote your unimpeachable/sworn source(s).
2nd Amendment
member
So definitive conclusions are impossible to arrive at and yet you spend several pages vehemently defending the claims of FedGov? Does anyone else see a certain discontinuity there?
You can't answer simple, easily defined questions that have very specific, easily quantifiable answers? Yet you can claim to be qualified to not only debate others here based on your having watched two TV docudramas but to dismiss everyone(the vast majority) who do not agree with your Statist ramblings? Is this discontinuity two here? A pattern of discontinuity? Interesting...
Allow me to ask you a question you CAN answer, then, since it is one focused on your own personal knowledge and reactions: You are a war historian, correct? WWII, was it? SO, let us say that a subject comes up on this forum regarding an important battle or campaign of that war(pick an event, any that suits you for this hypothetical) and someone pops up here to tell you how wrong you are about some part of it. He insists you are not only wrong but an ignorant member of the Tin Beanie Club based on his personal education via a couple of HistoEduDocuDrama Network specials. He refuses to answer your specific fact based questions and repeatedly posts bits and pieces of what he feels supports his opinion.
What would be your opinion of this individual's views? What would you think others opinions would be? How likely would he be to have any effect on the discussion, other than as a focus of contempt?
Now, go look in a mirror and see if you recognize someone
You can't answer simple, easily defined questions that have very specific, easily quantifiable answers? Yet you can claim to be qualified to not only debate others here based on your having watched two TV docudramas but to dismiss everyone(the vast majority) who do not agree with your Statist ramblings? Is this discontinuity two here? A pattern of discontinuity? Interesting...
Allow me to ask you a question you CAN answer, then, since it is one focused on your own personal knowledge and reactions: You are a war historian, correct? WWII, was it? SO, let us say that a subject comes up on this forum regarding an important battle or campaign of that war(pick an event, any that suits you for this hypothetical) and someone pops up here to tell you how wrong you are about some part of it. He insists you are not only wrong but an ignorant member of the Tin Beanie Club based on his personal education via a couple of HistoEduDocuDrama Network specials. He refuses to answer your specific fact based questions and repeatedly posts bits and pieces of what he feels supports his opinion.
What would be your opinion of this individual's views? What would you think others opinions would be? How likely would he be to have any effect on the discussion, other than as a focus of contempt?
Now, go look in a mirror and see if you recognize someone
To me it depends on the credibility of the author and has his "work" stood the test of time. History is available in many flavors, ask the publishers. A person's bias in large measure determine's how data is interpreted, a German, Englishman, Frenchman, Russian and American can write about WW2 and come up (most often they do) with different versions. Read many versions over a long time span and again draw your own conclusions. The right or wrong of a fact should not be a vote. A vote of 0-100 doesn't change the fact that 2+2=4 nor does 2+2=3 because it conforms to my beliefs and desires.
2nd Amendment
member
So you are not even capable of answering a question regarding your own reactions? Alrighty then...
AZLibertarian
Member
telewinz, you've been asked multiple times about broadening your mind beyond the information you've received from government/TV sources. Yet each time you respond with something resembling "No Tinfoil Hat Authors in my Library". You ask for credible sources, yet fail to acknowledge that perhaps, the government sources you rely on might not be that credible. You go to lengths to avoid seeing that the testimony delivered by government employees might have just a hint of bias.
On page three of this thread, there are three seperate recommendations to read No More Wacos. I believe this book has the credibility you are asking for, yet you seem to have closed off your mind to anything that doesn't parrot the government story. I'm hoping that you'll open up somewhat and read what the government doesn't want you to know. It may enlighten you.
On page three of this thread, there are three seperate recommendations to read No More Wacos. I believe this book has the credibility you are asking for, yet you seem to have closed off your mind to anything that doesn't parrot the government story. I'm hoping that you'll open up somewhat and read what the government doesn't want you to know. It may enlighten you.
I accept the Government report/information as the best available, most reliable but I never said it was beyond reproach or in anyway was anywhere near perfect. I concede that the best available IS NOT ALWAYS GOOD ENOUGH! Something different has comes along, but it's not better! The radical Right-wingers should not be allowed to re-define the definition of "legal evidence" and replace it with a newsreporter's investigation. That's what they damn our Government for. I'll take your advise and purchase a copy of "No More WACO" for it's entertainment value. Who knows, maybe it has "CREDIBLE" evidence, if not its just another opinion based "pulp-fiction" rip-off.
Duncan Idaho
member
Tell me again what felony (connected to the Ruby Ridge incident) Randy Weaver was convicted of. That is all of the certainty that I will need.
Go ahead, tell me.
Based on the proper legal procedures, Randy is as innocent as OJ. And both are free men as we speak. The system isn't perfect just as the radical right-wingers (and others) contend.
BTW did Randy stand trial for ALL the felonies he MAY have committed?
Now, should not your real question be did either man commit a felony?
But as you said, you don't need that piece of information, why not?
BTW did Randy stand trial for ALL the felonies he MAY have committed?
Now, should not your real question be did either man commit a felony?
But as you said, you don't need that piece of information, why not?
Keith
Member
That's a very poor analogy. Simpson was accused of murdering two people. Weaver was accused of violating a provision of the tax code.
I won't even argue Weavers guilt or innocence, because I don't really care. What I care about is government exercising power in a measured and appropriate way.
Accused tax cheaters like Koresh and Weaver should be subject to tax audits, not invasion by armed tax agents!
Do you not see the difference between murder and tax violations?
Keith
2nd Amendment
member
I guess you need to "help" me by making my acceptable responses in a mutiple choice format. Better yet, answer for me. Why change old habits?
Do you truly believe this sort of transparent manuevering furthers your "argument", such as it is?
I'll simplify further what was already an extremely simple set of questions: A neophyte claiming no knowledge beyond a couple short, sanitized TV shows arrives and not only questions your knowledge of the fundamentals of a well known event in WWII but puiblicly refuses to answer your questions and publicly insists he has all the data he needs and your sources are biased because they support your view instead of his.
What would you think of such a loon?
What would you think of the opinions of such a loon?
What do you think others would think of such a loon?
Spare me the twisting, turning verbiage and simply offer an answer, or at least have the dignity to say you can't do it, for obvious reasons.
Do you truly believe this sort of transparent manuevering furthers your "argument", such as it is?
I'll simplify further what was already an extremely simple set of questions: A neophyte claiming no knowledge beyond a couple short, sanitized TV shows arrives and not only questions your knowledge of the fundamentals of a well known event in WWII but puiblicly refuses to answer your questions and publicly insists he has all the data he needs and your sources are biased because they support your view instead of his.
What would you think of such a loon?
What would you think of the opinions of such a loon?
What do you think others would think of such a loon?
Spare me the twisting, turning verbiage and simply offer an answer, or at least have the dignity to say you can't do it, for obvious reasons.
TallPine
Member
So your opinion is worth more than that of the jurors that heard the evidence in those cases ...?
So why don't we just not bother with the time and expense of a trial, and instead determine the defendants' guilt or innocence in a Gallup poll ???
Or maybe the judge could just make the decision, or the prosecuting attorney, or even the arresting officer ...? Save a lot of time and money.
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
Okay, telewinz, how about this: I read the BATF warrant that enabled the raid on the Davidian compound. It was claimed (among other things) that Koresh had become a recluse, and had not been out in public for a lengthy period. (I don't remember the specific allegation, now, but it was more than just a couple of weeks.) For this reason, BATF would have to enter the compound to arrest him.
Now: Numerous witnesses in the general area frequented by Koresh stated that he had been out and around during the weeks before the raid. He had sat in with a rock&roll group. He had jogged to a convenience store where he regularly got a sweetroll and coffee. He had been seen driving his Pontiac. (An older Firebird, I vaguely recall.)
It seems to me that disinterested witnesses are possibly more reliable than somebody seeking to justify a preconceived notion.
Note that the sheriff of McLennan County stated to the press that all he had to do to talk to Koresh was to phone and Koresh would appear at the sheriff's office. I then wonder why this means was not tried.
I have a buddy with BATF in central Texas. I asked him about the rumor that the raid was a PR deal, because of the budget hearings due in some two more weeks. To him, it was not a rumor; it was fact.
James Pate, in SOF magazine, stated he had interviewed people from Joint Task Force Six, who had trained the BATF agents at a facility at Fort Hood. It was claimed that this use of military personnel is a violation of federal law. I note this was omitted from the testimony before Congress.
It is for reasons like these that I have doubts about the mature wisdom of some of our federal employees, not to mention their veracity.
Art
Now: Numerous witnesses in the general area frequented by Koresh stated that he had been out and around during the weeks before the raid. He had sat in with a rock&roll group. He had jogged to a convenience store where he regularly got a sweetroll and coffee. He had been seen driving his Pontiac. (An older Firebird, I vaguely recall.)
It seems to me that disinterested witnesses are possibly more reliable than somebody seeking to justify a preconceived notion.
Note that the sheriff of McLennan County stated to the press that all he had to do to talk to Koresh was to phone and Koresh would appear at the sheriff's office. I then wonder why this means was not tried.
I have a buddy with BATF in central Texas. I asked him about the rumor that the raid was a PR deal, because of the budget hearings due in some two more weeks. To him, it was not a rumor; it was fact.
James Pate, in SOF magazine, stated he had interviewed people from Joint Task Force Six, who had trained the BATF agents at a facility at Fort Hood. It was claimed that this use of military personnel is a violation of federal law. I note this was omitted from the testimony before Congress.
It is for reasons like these that I have doubts about the mature wisdom of some of our federal employees, not to mention their veracity.
Art
There is no doubt in my mind the the ATF raid was a PR stunt. IIRC the cameraman later made a statement to the Texas Rangers that the ATF didn't fire first. But creating a PR event is not unique to WACO, LE does it all the time in drug busts, is it yet against proper procedure to do so? Appearing at a suspect's residence by LE is not unique to WACO also. Could they have gotten him some other way? I don't see why not but knowing what LE knew at the time, why bother? It was suppose to be a routine procedure with just a slight twist.
It seems there were military personel at WACO but evidence says they may have been observers, the military did loan UNARMED military vehicles. There are unfounded charges that one of the vehicles had a flamethrower.
If it is illegal to train ATF agents at Ft. Hood and someone has evidence this occurred, this why wasn't this submitted to congress. Did someone or some agency prevent this information from being admitted for consideration or did James Pete just plain not bother? Isn't this a separate issue?
Again and not to wear it out, I prefer sworn testamony when available to 2nd or 3rd hand information. And I prefer expert opinion over that of a laymans. In eyewittness accounts I prefer a sighted person's account over a blind persons account. These are not foolproof sources (no one said they were)but its better than most methods.
It seems there were military personel at WACO but evidence says they may have been observers, the military did loan UNARMED military vehicles. There are unfounded charges that one of the vehicles had a flamethrower.
If it is illegal to train ATF agents at Ft. Hood and someone has evidence this occurred, this why wasn't this submitted to congress. Did someone or some agency prevent this information from being admitted for consideration or did James Pete just plain not bother? Isn't this a separate issue?
Again and not to wear it out, I prefer sworn testamony when available to 2nd or 3rd hand information. And I prefer expert opinion over that of a laymans. In eyewittness accounts I prefer a sighted person's account over a blind persons account. These are not foolproof sources (no one said they were)but its better than most methods.
Gewehr98
Nice try at discrediting me but I am a state employee not federal. At the time of WACO and Ruby Ridge I was employed by the private sector. See what I mean about the value of sworn/responsible evidence vs heresay and inaccurate opinion?
What book do you plan on writing? BTW I've had a mental stability evaluation (routine requirement for a position I applied for) within the last 9 months. I tied for the highest score in the state. I have my papers and can prove I'm not a "loon" where are your papers? Maybe you better not leave home without them
Nice try at discrediting me but I am a state employee not federal. At the time of WACO and Ruby Ridge I was employed by the private sector. See what I mean about the value of sworn/responsible evidence vs heresay and inaccurate opinion?
What book do you plan on writing? BTW I've had a mental stability evaluation (routine requirement for a position I applied for) within the last 9 months. I tied for the highest score in the state. I have my papers and can prove I'm not a "loon" where are your papers? Maybe you better not leave home without themArt Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
"Did someone or some agency prevent this information from being admitted for consideration or did James Pete just plain not bother? Isn't this a separate issue?"
Probably a separate issue. IIRC, the article appeared after the hearings, when the "Whitewash!" cry began. By the time of the article, I imagine that Congress, the DOJ, the FBI and the ATF had had all of Waco they wanted.
However, it was commented upon by many observers how differently the Montana Freemen were treated in that standoff. Later, when the Republic of Texas idiots did their standoff thing at Fort Davis, the feds stayed as far away from it as possible, leaving to the Texas Dept of Public Safety...
By and large, other than the anti-militia noises after the Oklahoma City bombing, the feds have been much less aggressive in their efforts against some of the fringe groups.
Art
Probably a separate issue. IIRC, the article appeared after the hearings, when the "Whitewash!" cry began. By the time of the article, I imagine that Congress, the DOJ, the FBI and the ATF had had all of Waco they wanted.
However, it was commented upon by many observers how differently the Montana Freemen were treated in that standoff. Later, when the Republic of Texas idiots did their standoff thing at Fort Davis, the feds stayed as far away from it as possible, leaving to the Texas Dept of Public Safety...
By and large, other than the anti-militia noises after the Oklahoma City bombing, the feds have been much less aggressive in their efforts against some of the fringe groups.
Art
Art
I agree wholeheartedly with your observations. Public pressure/opinion still works in this country and not just with the Feds but state and local governments as well. The blame for Ruby Ridge and WACO can and should be SHARED by all parties, no one walked away clean not by a long shot. I think lessons have been learned and changes have been made.
If their is new "creditable and compelling evidence" why not ask Congress to re-examine WACO and Ruby Ridge? They did it for JFK's murder.
I agree wholeheartedly with your observations. Public pressure/opinion still works in this country and not just with the Feds but state and local governments as well. The blame for Ruby Ridge and WACO can and should be SHARED by all parties, no one walked away clean not by a long shot. I think lessons have been learned and changes have been made.
If their is new "creditable and compelling evidence" why not ask Congress to re-examine WACO and Ruby Ridge? They did it for JFK's murder.
As a federal employee who just finished his latest 5-year SSBI investigation...
My papers are in order. As is my psych eval. But it pained me to see the same federal government that pays my wages twice a month go out of it's way to orchestrate Ruby Ridge and Waco. It was even a topic of discussion when the ATF requested my resume' and security clearance for my post-retirement career with them. Because of that, I know for certain that one regional ATF director would like to distance his branch from what happened in those two places. It would appear they're quite sensitive to it, I wasn't the first to bring it up in a pre-interview.
My papers are in order. As is my psych eval. But it pained me to see the same federal government that pays my wages twice a month go out of it's way to orchestrate Ruby Ridge and Waco. It was even a topic of discussion when the ATF requested my resume' and security clearance for my post-retirement career with them. Because of that, I know for certain that one regional ATF director would like to distance his branch from what happened in those two places. It would appear they're quite sensitive to it, I wasn't the first to bring it up in a pre-interview.
Gewehr...
Upon my review of the EVIDENCE, I find my NON-EXPERT OPINION on the possible state of your mental health was without merit. Lacking any new and impartial EVIDENCE I must conclude that your mental health is as good as any ATF or FBI agent's.
Now, you were given a fair hearing (not perfect) based on the evidence (limited) available. Any responsible individual with compelling "new evidence" may request a new RESPONSIBLE INVESTIGATION and hearing based on all the EVIDENCE available, not the emotions.
Upon my review of the EVIDENCE, I find my NON-EXPERT OPINION on the possible state of your mental health was without merit. Lacking any new and impartial EVIDENCE I must conclude that your mental health is as good as any ATF or FBI agent's.
Now, you were given a fair hearing (not perfect) based on the evidence (limited) available. Any responsible individual with compelling "new evidence" may request a new RESPONSIBLE INVESTIGATION and hearing based on all the EVIDENCE available, not the emotions.
C.R.Sam
Moderator Emeritus
Me too, know one that feels that way.
Sam
Tamara
Senior Member
geekwitha.45,
To give you the scoop, you have to understand that the jurors were presented with basically three counts per defendant. Count One was the conspiracy charge, Count Two was the murder charge, and Count Three was the "using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to the commission of a criminal offense" charge. The jury found all eleven of the defendants innocent of the first two, and three of them innocent of all three counts. Originally the judge felt he would have to turn them loose on probation or with greatly reduced sentences, but LeRoy Jahn found a Fifth Circuit court precedent that allowed inconsistent verdicts to stand (ie conviction of the lesser third charge implied guilt on the greater first two charges, so he set aside the jury's verdict on the first two charges.
To give you the scoop, you have to understand that the jurors were presented with basically three counts per defendant. Count One was the conspiracy charge, Count Two was the murder charge, and Count Three was the "using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to the commission of a criminal offense" charge. The jury found all eleven of the defendants innocent of the first two, and three of them innocent of all three counts. Originally the judge felt he would have to turn them loose on probation or with greatly reduced sentences, but LeRoy Jahn found a Fifth Circuit court precedent that allowed inconsistent verdicts to stand (ie conviction of the lesser third charge implied guilt on the greater first two charges, so he set aside the jury's verdict on the first two charges.
- Status