Generally, yes. But there are exceptions, and I expect we disagree on when those exceptions apply.
Naw, dawg…you walk it back. You know you are on safe ground at this board playing it that that jag-off Khoresh was guilty of just about anything you want to say. But you also know that this board isn’t the world. Just admit you want to take it as fact that the allegations are true because reasons and we’ll call it over. We won’t call it that you’re right, just over.
SHHHHH! :mad: Don’t let out the Great White Secret!
Sent from my laptop, sipping 200 y/o Scotch, smoking a Cuban cigar, on furniture made from the hides of endangered/extinct animals I shot myself, all paid for with proceeds from my NRA Gun Lobby and Big Oil money.
Dude, seriously… you’re carrying water for David Fucking Koresh??
There’s certainly evidence that he was a manipulative abusive fuck:
No need to find it compelling, you do you. But surely you realize that one can simultaneously believe that Waco was a clusterfuck of epic proportions and that Koresh was a manipulative abusive fuck, right?
What about the Wonder bread and Miracle Whip sandwich?
None of those allegations had anything at all to do with why the government raided the compound. Those allegations were only brought up later.
The government was only ever concerned about stockpiling of guns (which is prefectly legal) and wanted to search the property. To do so, they made up false claims and intercepted the compound mail without warrants. Then they killed almost everyone in the compound.
David Koresh is so super relevant, and I am so fucking glad I let myself get dragged into somebody’s bizarre pet project. Woo, and may I add, hoo.
You miss two things in this. First off, the majority didn’t decide. The state made a unilateral decision, subverting the ability of the cities to decide on their own merit. It’s not as if there was a vote on whether the statue should come down, and the side wanting to take it down lost. The state government usurped that power from the city in order to enforce its own political will on that of the more liberal cities.
The second is that, while democracy is indeed the alternative to violence, that works both ways. If the people do not think their government is representing them, then they may resort to violence. Part of the purpose of a democracy is to leave people feeling like they are in control so that they don’t feel the need to take things into their own hands.
It’s really the foundational principle of the United States. The people in the American colonies did not not feel that they were being fairly represented in the government across the ocean. So they took it upon themselves to commit violence in order to remedy that situation.
Sure, we have an obligation to try and not let it get to that point, and to work out our differences peaceably. But a democratic government also has an obligation to do what the people want. When it doesn’t, the people can revolt, if they think they have a chance to win. And that happens when they think the people are behind them, rather than behind the government.
I guarantee you that, if the pro-lifers thought they could destroy some property and make it where abortion was no longer possible, they would do it in a heart beat. They already do everything they think they can get away with to stop it now, no matter how dishonest.
It’s not an issue of what should be, but what actually is. Democracy rests on the backs of keeping the people sufficiently happy.
For the sake of the argument, let’s say this is accurate and unbiased in every particular. It isn’t, but if it were…
Kindly explain how that would make blowing up the Murrah Building “not entirely unreasonable.”
Many of the posters seem to argue on the basis of “not entirely unjustifiable” rather than "“not entirely unreasonable.” It is certainly reasonable to assume that McVeigh got mad at the US government, insofar as it explains his motives, but it does not justify his actions, which were neither reasonably nor justifiable. Or, not at least to anyone who is not as narrowly mentally focused as McVeigh. He wanted revenge, to attack the US government, and cared nothing for the extensive collateral damage he did.
Any such discussion brings up the question of whether the government has a monopoly on the right to use force, lethal force if need be. Whatever the legal and moral issues, all governments do assert that right. In the better government this right is hedged around with restrictions. The amount of force that a government will allow its citizens to exercise is another issue, but generally that excludes either injury or death (the exceptions being failed states or totalitarian regimes).
Yet another issue is whether a government can also exert force internationally, as in Afghanistan and Iraq. Under certain circumstances, yes, but there is also a large body of opinion that USA has overstepped the limits and is a terrorist itself. This then brings up the issue as to whether Afghans and Iraqis are justified in killing US citizens, or whether they are just terrorists. My answer is that I can certainly understand why they want to do that, but I most certainly don’t approve of it.
I’m not sure I would equate “understandable” with “reasonable.”
First, no state can “usurp” a power of a city. Cities (aka municipal corporations) are creatures of the state. By definition they are only given the power that the state by its beneficence allows them.
Second, just because your side lost a vote in the Legislature does not mean that you are not “being represented.” You are being represented; it’s just that you lost. To use that as an excuse for law breaking means that there will always be lawbreaking and violence. If a Legislature votes to remove all Confederate statues, can the losing side put them back up? No matter what we have social discord.
If these statues are not what the people want, then the people should petition their Legislature for a repeal of the law protecting this statues.
No, dude, I am not. I have little regard for the man or his memory. Khoresh and his group were cultists, it seems pretty clear. The government changed their story repeatedly during the siege. Cooking meth…child rape…the story changed daily, it seemed. What it was all about was the government was concerned about the Branch Davidians stockpiling guns, though that isn’t itself against the law. BATFE tried to turn what should have been a routine investigation into a publicity op and, by the time it all shook out, the Branch Davidians were all dead. Then evidence started disappearing. These events had a lot of impact on McVeigh. LHoD seems to think he knows The Truth about Khoresh. I think he should put up or shut up. Repeating allegations the government made to help cover their own asses brings nothing to the discussion. Frankly, I don’t know why we are discussing Khoresh at all. The topic is supposed to McVeigh…but I guess LHoD has some point he thought he was making.
To be fair, Waco is mentioned specifically in the thread title.
Yes, Bricker, rat avatar gets to decide what things are fair. I, for one, welcome our new Rodent Overlord.
If what McVeigh did was done with a goal of “justice,” by any definition agreed-upon by a majority of this forum, I’m Pol frickin’ Pot.
This is a profoundly stupid mischaracterization and a continuation of your bizarre obsession with me, Khoresh, or both, I can’t really tell.
If your point is that I don’t know–I already admitted that, like, we can’t know anything for certain, duuuuuude. But there are multiple, disparate sources for information about Koresh’s taking of child brides and consummating the relationships, and no particular reason to think these disparate sources conspired to defame him. I’m not sitting on his jury, so I’m not obligated to any particular standard of proof; I find your water-carrying for a probable child-rapist to be repugnant.
So, I don’t really know, duuuuude. But I’ve got enough information to draw a reasonable conclusion.