I feel so proud....

[Nathan F]

Addendum to above:

Just a clarification, think I see what you're saying about a double standard, but by you quoting me when you say this, I'm getting the impression that you're talking to me, when I'm not even making a double standard. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but for me to hold a double standard, wouldn't I have to develop two differing opinons on similar events or occurances? I've yet to make much of a decision concerning the BDs because I simply do not know enough about the situation. However, I have reached a conclusion on the attack on the mosque from firsthand reports and news reports on the situation. I know what happend, why it has happened, and the circumstances surrounding what had happened. I know somewhat about what happend with the BDs, kind of sorta why it happened, and not alot about the circumstances surrounding the event. For me to come to a conclusion before knowing all I can find out about it would be foolish and irresponsible.

[AdmiralKanos]

Dammit, Mike, I'm not holding a double standard. First off, I'm not defending the BDs, in fact, the government was *probably* right in taking the place out. HOWEVER, I do NOT KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT THE SITUATION.

No, moron, I'm not saying you're defending the Branch Davidians. What I'm saying is that most people would have been outraged if they'd blasted the place, while they think a similar situation in a foreign country calls for such action without batting an eyelash.

Your point is completely moot, seeing as though I've yet to make a stance one way or the other on the issue you are harping on. Calm down man, don't bust a blood vessel, I'm not even disagreeing with you!

Then stop accusing me of strawman fallacies when it's clear that you leapt to a completely ass-backward interpretation of the point.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

Actually, I remember seeing something on the Discovery channel (or something like that) that said that the Davidians didn't burn themselves down, rather it was the knockout gas, that the Firearms/Tobacco/Alcohol's tank pumped in there, igniting.

[Joe]

Actually, I remember seeing something on the Discovery channel (or something like that) that said that the Davidians didn't burn themselves down, rather it was the knockout gas, that the Firearms/Tobacco/Alcohol's tank pumped in there, igniting.

Odd how the fire started at the end of the compound the tank wasn't at, then.

[AdmiralKanos]

Addendum to above:

Just a clarification, think I see what you're saying about a double standard, but by you quoting me when you say this, I'm getting the impression that you're talking to me, when I'm not even making a double standard.

Which is why I repeatedly asked you whether you would have advocated a military assault on their compound: a question which you evaded by saying that you didn't know enough to answer even though you know that they were hostile, well-armed, holed up inside, and had shot several police officers: more than enough information if we go by the standard with which you have passed judgement on similar situations in foreign lands.

In fact, by refusing to pass a judgement on the Branch Davidians, you have already demonstrated a double-standard.

[AdmiralKanos]

Actually, I remember seeing something on the Discovery channel (or something like that) that said that the Davidians didn't burn themselves down, rather it was the knockout gas, that the Firearms/Tobacco/Alcohol's tank pumped in there, igniting.

Oh puh-lease, I watched that operation live on TV. The fire started at the other end of the building, and they were extremely cautious trying to break through the wall. The tinfoil-hat people keep saying that the FBI was out to commit mass-murder, but they're full of shit, as usual.

[Nathan F]

Honestly, Mike, you can't expect me to be able to read your mind to determine when you are making retorts to my posts or when you are making points off of my posts when you quote me. Nobody ever said anything about the Branch Dividians or tried to defend them. Nobody ever made any sort of double standard. Nothing else was mentioned until you brought it up and kept driving it into the ground even when we didn't disagree about the BDs.

You started debating me, even though I never said anything about how the BDs were in the right, or how this situation would have been any different if it had happened here in the US. No one ever even mentioned anything that would suggest a double standard, that is unless you automatically think that just because some of us are a bit right of center that we are going to make kneejerk arguments for the BDs against the "evil" BATF.

Just calm down and quit tossing the derogatory names, nobody ever disagreed with you or made any statement that should prompt an outburst like your first post.

[Nathan F]

Addendum to above:

Just a clarification, think I see what you're saying about a double standard, but by you quoting me when you say this, I'm getting the impression that you're talking to me, when I'm not even making a double standard.

Which is why I repeatedly asked you whether you would have advocated a military assault on their compound: a question which you evaded by saying that you didn't know enough to answer even though you know that they were hostile, well-armed, holed up inside, and had shot several police officers: more than enough information if we go by the standard with which you have passed judgement on similar situations in foreign lands.

In fact, by refusing to pass a judgement on the Branch Davidians, you have already demonstrated a double-standard.

WTF Mike? Had you read my entire first post you would have read that I didn't know alot about what had happend. I wasn't aware that they had killed law enforcement officers or were well armed. Quit jumping to all the damn conclusions.

[AdmiralKanos]

You started debating me, even though I never said anything about how the BDs were in the right, or how this situation would have been any different if it had happened here in the US.

You said that it was completely in the right to blow up mosques if terrorists were hiding in them, without bothering to even inquire whether there was anybody else in there. In the US, even the possibility of one priest being in there with them would be enough to halt the guns, and you know it.

No one ever even mentioned anything that would suggest a double standard, that is unless you automatically think that just because some of us are a bit right of center that we are going to make kneejerk arguments for the BDs against the "evil" BATF.

Actually, by demanding more information about an extremely well-documented event before making a judgement, you have ALREADY demonstrated a double-standard. Stop bullshitting.

Just calm down and quit tossing the derogatory names, nobody ever disagreed with you or made any statement that should prompt an outburst like your first post.

You accused me of a strawman fallacy because you were too goddamned stupid to see the point I was making, and now you claim that one had to be a mind-reader to see that I was making an accusation of a double-standard, as if you honestly seem to think that nobody could possibly figure out what it means when someone says "yup, I agree with this" and someone else says "but would you agree if it was done in the US?"

[AdmiralKanos]

WTF Mike? Had you read my entire first post you would have read that I didn't know alot about what had happend. I wasn't aware that they had killed law enforcement officers or were well armed. Quit jumping to all the damn conclusions.

Are you serious? I can't believe anybody would be so completely ignorant of such a well-known news event in his own country.

[Howedar]

Actually, by demanding more information about an extremely well-documented event before making a judgement, you have ALREADY demonstrated a double-standard. Stop bullshitting.

Asking for evidence is a double standard? Please

I could ask you about, say, some sort of pop culture bullshit which is "extremely well-documented"; that doesn't mean you or anyone else necessarily knows it.

[Rogue 9]

I dunno, I was talking to a Swedish friend of mine a couple days ago and he didn't know about the countries added to the EU that day, which I think would be even bigger news over there than the Branch Davidians were over here. Its sad, but hardly uncommon for big news to escape people. So yeah, I believe it.

[AdmiralKanos]

Actually, by demanding more information about an extremely well-documented event before making a judgement, you have ALREADY demonstrated a double-standard. Stop bullshitting.

Asking for evidence is a double standard? Please

When a sketchy news report is considered more than enough evidence to do it in another country? Please

I could ask you about, say, some sort of pop culture bullshit which is "extremely well-documented"; that doesn't mean you or anyone else necessarily knows it.

Waco was analogous to "pop culture bullshit?"

[AdmiralKanos]

I dunno, I was talking to a Swedish friend of mine a couple days ago and he didn't know about the countries added to the EU that day, which I think would be even bigger news over there than the Branch Davidians were over here. Its sad, but hardly uncommon for big news to escape people. So yeah, I believe it.

If someone is going to involve himself in political arguments involving matters of military action and risk of collateral damage, it is his responsibility to perform a bit of cursory research when relevant examples are raised. It's not as if massive in-depth research would have been needed to know that the Branch Davidians were well-armed or that they shot cops.

[Nathan F]

You started debating me, even though I never said anything about how the BDs were in the right, or how this situation would have been any different if it had happened here in the US.

You said that it was completely in the right to blow up mosques if terrorists were hiding in them, without bothering to even inquire whether there was anybody else in there. In the US, even the possibility of one priest being in there with them would be enough to halt the guns, and you know it.

Mike, read this:

IMHO, whenever Terrori...er...enemy militants take over a building, it becomes a free target as long as the risk of non-combatant casualties is low enough. If they take over a mosque and start hiding behind the rest of the world's political correctness, then that mosque should become just another building infested with them.[/quote
Look, I stated that if the risk of noncom casualties is low enough, then it should be done. There is *always* a risk of innocents being hurt. If there are terrorists holed up inside a church, and the intel says that there aren't any civilians inside, or at least civilians that aren't providing willfull support to the combatants, then it is free game.

No one ever even mentioned anything that would suggest a double standard, that is unless you automatically think that just because some of us are a bit right of center that we are going to make kneejerk arguments for the BDs against the "evil" BATF.

Actually, by demanding more information about an extremely well-documented event before making a judgement, you have ALREADY demonstrated a double-standard. Stop bullshitting.

Damn, how many times have I got to say it? I did not know alot about the situation, alot less than I should have been admittedly. I wasn't aware that people had been killed by them beforehand, I wasn't aware that they were armed and dangerous. Forgive my ignorance, oh great all knowing one.

Just calm down and quit tossing the derogatory names, nobody ever disagreed with you or made any statement that should prompt an outburst like your first post.

You accused me of a strawman fallacy because you were too goddamned stupid to see the point I was making, and now you claim that one had to be a mind-reader to see that I was making an accusation of a double-standard, as if you honestly seem to think that nobody could possibly figure out what it means when someone says "yup, I agree with this" and someone else says "but would you agree if it was done in the US?"

I accused you of a strawman because you started ragging on me on something that I had never mentioned or said one way or the other on. You jumped to the conclusion that I supported the BDs, even though I don't, especially after what I learned about them just now.

You can keep ragging on me all you want all night, Mike, but frankly, I think you're being irrational, and this is going to get you nothing more than high blood pressure. You are continually ragging on me in this thread for no reason whatosever, pulling reasons out of your ass, inferring things that I never once stated or made a stance on. You'd go apeshit on me if I started jumping to conclusions like that on you.

This "Sketchy news report" you refer to isn't my only source. As I stated, I've got this plus the very detailed reports of a person who was there. Had you taken the time to read my posts without trying to jump to your insane conclusions, then you would have seen that. I know a heckuva lot more about what happened here than I know about what happened at Waco.

And with that, I bid you good night.

[Howedar]

When a sketchy news report is considered more than enough evidence to do it in another country? Please

Sure, if Nathan truly has no clue what happened at the Branch D compound. Of course, you didn't bother to, you know, find out what he knew before you started ranting and raving.

Waco was analogous to "pop culture bullshit?"

Yes. Both are, as you say, "extremely well-documented". Yet a rather large proportion of the population has no clue about either one.

[AdmiralKanos]

Mike, read this:

IMHO, whenever Terrori...er...enemy militants take over a building, it becomes a free target as long as the risk of non-combatant casualties is low enough.

And in the US, "low enough" would mean "zero". That's the double-standard I was talking about; what part of this do you not understand?

Look, I stated that if the risk of noncom casualties is low enough, then it should be done. There is *always* a risk of innocents being hurt. If there are terrorists holed up inside a church, and the intel says that there aren't any civilians inside, or at least civilians that aren't providing willfull support to the combatants, then it is free game.

Try that in a suburban neighbourhood in Massachussetts.

Damn, how many times have I got to say it? I did not know alot about the situation, alot less than I should have been admittedly. I wasn't aware that people had been killed by them beforehand, I wasn't aware that they were armed and dangerous. Forgive my ignorance, oh great all knowing one.

Oh puh-lease, ten seconds on Google would have made it clear. You say you've been personally in contact with some guy in Thailand about this but you can't bother to spend a minute Googling an event which took place in your own country?

I accused you of a strawman because you started ragging on me on something that I had never mentioned or said one way or the other on. You jumped to the conclusion that I supported the BDs, even though I don't, especially after what I learned about them just now.

Again, you demonstrate the reading comprehension of a newt. I never accused you of SUPPORTING the Branch Davidians; I said that if you were transplanted to that situation, and knew that there were some innocents inside, you would agree with everyone else that direct military action is out of the question. It's not a matter of saying that the risk of non-combatant casualties has to be pretty low; you would simply rule it out.

You can keep ragging on me all you want all night, Mike, but frankly, I think you're being irrational, and this is going to get you nothing more than high blood pressure. You are continually ragging on me in this thread for no reason whatosever, pulling reasons out of your ass, inferring things that I never once stated or made a stance on. You'd go apeshit on me if I started jumping to conclusions like that on you.

Nowhere in this do I see a refutation of the point; as usual, you simply try to claim it's about personality.

This "Sketchy news report" you refer to isn't my only source. As I stated, I've got this plus the very detailed reports of a person who was there. Had you taken the time to read my posts without trying to jump to your insane conclusions, then you would have seen that. I know a heckuva lot more about what happened here than I know about what happened at Waco.

Apparently because you couldn't be bothered to spend one minute Googling it, even though it was obvious from context that I was suggesting that the events were analogous so the point remained and you were obviously evading it.

And with that, I bid you good night.

And with that, you evade the point once again while distorting my argument for the umpteenth time. How many fucking times do I have to point out that I was accusing you of a double-standard, NOT accusing you of SUPPORTING the Branch Davidians?

[AdmiralKanos]

Waco was analogous to "pop culture bullshit?"

Yes. Both are, as you say, "extremely well-documented". Yet a rather large proportion of the population has no clue about either one.

Bullshit. Pop culture bullshit is not relevant to this discussion. Waco is. And moreover, it was obvious from the context in which it was used that I was claiming Waco was analogous to this situation; it doesn't take a fucking rocket scientist to see that, nor does his evasive bullshit excuse his repeated strawman distortions.

[Howedar]

No Mike, you were pointing out a double-standard among some people in the US. Why you assumed Nathan was one of those I honestly do not know.

[AdmiralKanos]

No Mike, you were pointing out a double-standard among some people in the US. Why you assumed Nathan was one of those I honestly do not know.

Unless Nathan would be one of the only people in the country who would approve the use of rocket launchers and missiles or artillery against a compound with innocents inside, it's a reasonable assumption and you know it, bullshitter.

[Howedar]

So in other words, you really had nothing to base your assumption on, and now you're going on the attack because you know you can't defend your initial post.

Fuck this, this wasn't even Nathan's debate, and sure as fuck it isn't mine.

[AdmiralKanos]

So in other words, you really had nothing to base your assumption on, and now you're going on the attack because you know you can't defend your initial post.

Nice bullshitting there. Are you arguing that it was NOT a reasonable assumption that Nathan would have vetoed the use of heavy weapons against a compound in Texas with innocents inside? Or are you resorting to sophistry and bullshit by saying that because I didn't have absolute knowledge of that fact, it was completely unreasonable of me to assume it even though we both know it's true?

Fuck this, this wasn't even Nathan's debate, and sure as fuck it isn't mine.

So it's only an OK debate when you're both agreeing with each other that it's OK to blow up buildings in other countries where terrorists have holed up even if innocents die, but when someone points out that you would OBVIOUSLY not approve the same thing in the US, you seize upon the fact that you never actually admitted you wouldn't do the same thing in the US and claim that the person hasn't a leg to stand on. Brilliant

[HemlockGrey]

Does the article say exactly how many civilians were in the mosque?

Incidentally, heavy weapons and residential neighborhoods in the US do occasionally come into contact. I believe a previous mayor of Philadelphia practically firebombed a compound, with innocents inside, that some wacko criminal cult was holed up in.

[frigidmagi]

Son of a Bitch, Gilligan Boy's Did It. Damn I can't make cracks about the Cross Dressing Thai Paratrooper Divison anymore.

I gotta go e-mail him about this.

[Glocksman]

Does the article say exactly how many civilians were in the mosque?

Incidentally, heavy weapons and residential neighborhoods in the US do occasionally come into contact. I believe a previous mayor of Philadelphia practically firebombed a compound, with innocents inside, that some wacko criminal cult was holed up in.

The Philadelphia MOVE incident

Police officers arrived at the MOVE home at 6221 Osage Avenue in West Philadelphia on the morning of May 13, 1985 to serve arrest warrants on four MOVE members, and were met with gunfire, authorities said. Police fired back, touching off a 90-minute gun battle.


Later that day, police dropped the bomb on the MOVE row house from a state police helicopter. The bomb missed its target -- a fortified bunker on the roof -- and started a fire that burned an entire city block.

I've seen reports that the 'bomb' was 100 pounds or so of C4, but I'm not sure of the reliability of those reports. If this is true, my question would be where did a bunch of stumblefuck cops get a military explosive like C4?


Anyway, using bombs or other heavy weaponry on buildings where innocents are either being held hostage or can be injured or killed by area effect weapons is wrong.

I don't know enough about either situation (I assume you're talking about Ruby Ridge in Montana) to say either way.

Ruby Ridge was in Idaho, and I do know enough about that incident to state that the FBI sniper who shot an unarmed woman with an infant in her arms through the head is a murderer.

Apparently the government agrees with me as they settled the wrongful death suit Weaver filed for several million dollars.

CourtTRV's Crime Library has an evenhanded article on the entire debacle.