"We'll Stay Multiculturally Correct - Even if it Kills Us"

Quote:

---

They certainly weren't mainstream nor peace loving...

---

How does that make them terrorists? And where do you get the fact that they werent peaceloving?

Quote:

---

at the very least they were criminals.....with some pretty freaky loony ideas thrown in....the atf and the fbi kicked their ass like they should..

---

In this country its not against the law to hold strange or unpopular beliefs.

The davidians were guilty of a crime that thousands of Americans are guilty of - buying and selling unregistered and illegal guns.

That is absolutely no reason for the FBI to go in and kill them all, including women and children. What a few of the branch davidians were doing required fines, and if they didnt stop maybe some jail time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

In this country its not against the law to hold strange or unpopular beliefs.

The davidians were guilty of a crime that thousands of Americans are guilty of - buying and selling unregistered and illegal guns.

That is absolutely no reason for the FBI to go in and kill them all, including women and children. What a few of the branch davidians were doing required fines, and if they didnt stop maybe some jail time.

---

a simple matter of issuing some fines that turned into a full scale siege because of the davidians extreme positions.......you can have whatever belief´s you have....but the police is still the police.

as far as i´m concerned if you greet law inforcement officers by shooting at them then said officers are free to respond with deadly force...which they did.

the level to which that situation got out of hand, resulting in the deaths that you mentioned is hardly the fbi and atf´s fault but that of the davinians themselfs.....if they had just complied to the law the entire situation wouldn´t have happened.

Quote:

---

as far as i´m concerned if you greet law inforcement officers by shooting at them then said officers are free to respond with deadly force...which they did.

---

I dont think that the way it started. Also its against our laws to use the military against civilians within US borders. Did those tanks belong to the police ? And werent some other military organizations involved?

Quote:

---

'No Doubt FBI Fired
On Davidians' - Waco
Slaughter Proof Emerging
NewsMax.com
1-26-2000


The Waco controversy has been raging for seven years,
and last night CBS' "60 Minutes II" finally decided to
investigate.

"60 Minutes II's" Dan Rather hosted the segment "What
Really Happened at Waco?"





On April 19, 1993, the Branch Davidian compound was
raided by the FBI, and more than 70 people died, some by
fire, others by gunshot.

The FBI has consistently claimed none of their members
ever fired into the compound that fateful day. Though
more than a dozen corpses were found in the compound
with gunshot wounds, the FBI still claimed no federal
agent fired into the burning house.

The Waco controversy was rekindled last year when
Michael McNulty, a documentary film producer,
discovered shell casings from a tear gas round that had
incendiary characteristics, something the FBI had stated
they had not used on the climactic day of the standoff.

McNulty's film, "Waco: The Rules of Engagement," also
showed infrared film taken by an FBI aircraft of what
appeared to be gunfire aimed into the compound and
coming from FBI-controlled areas.

The FBI has claimed the infrared film does not indicate
gunfire.

But an expert consulted by "60 Minutes II" examined the
tape and says the film does indeed show gunfire.

Paul Beavers, an expert on the subject who had extensive
experience with infrared imagery for the British army, said
he had no doubts the FBI had fired on the compound.

"There's some flashes there, which to
me look exactly as if they're gunfire,"
Beavers said, examining the film.

"They have all the right characteristics.
There we go. There we go. Two
rounds. It's what's called a 'doubletap.' It's what you
expect a trained marksman to do, to fire two rounds within
close proximity of each other," he added.

"One, two - yep, it's not a glitch in the camera," Beavers
said. "It's not the sun striking something. It's not swamp
gas reflecting off the planet Venus. This is somebody
shooting."

"Congress was misled on this; there is no question about
it," Assistant United States Attorney Bill Johnston told
CBS before resigning today. Johnston fears the Justice
Department has engaged in a cover-up.



"Let's examine what really happened here...
Whatever you think of us, it doesn't give anybody a right
to come and kill helpless women and children."
-- Stan Sylvia (a sect member)

---

Well Gawain said what I was going to... its become quite obvious, despite attempts at a cover up, the FBI went in there looking for a fight and started one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

Well Gawain said what I was going to... its become quite obvious, despite attempts at a cover up, the FBI went in there looking for a fight and started one.

---

the FBI said it didn´t shoot in the last day for the same reason that you saw the chief of scotland yard apologising(spelling?) on the other day for the situation with the brazilian guy....

they do it because the situation looks bad...not because they were on the wrong...and not because they wouldn´t do it again, because it was the right thing to do.


and nonetheless....the quote that gawain posted refers to the last day of the wacko situation.....i continue to state that if the davidians had obeyed the law there wouldn´t have been a siege in the first place.

Quote:

---

and nonetheless....the quote that gawain posted refers to the last day of the wacko situation.....i continue to state that if the davidians had obeyed the law there wouldn´t have been a siege in the first place.

---

So if you disobey the any law the FBI can be called in and kill you and burn your home to the ground? How can anyone on the left support this travesty? Because it was the Clinton adminstrations fault is the only reason I see.

Quote:

---

they do it because the situation looks bad...not because they were on the wrong...and not because they wouldn´t do it again, because it was the right thing to do.

---

They were in the wrong and tried to cover it up. If this had happened under Bush and Ashcroft you best believe the left would be demonizing them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

So if you disobey the any law the FBI can be called in and kill you and burn your home to the ground? How can anyone on the left support this travesty? Because it was the Clinton adminstrations fault is the only reason I see.

---

one of these days we´ll have to adress this belief that circulates on these boards that i´m from.."the left"...whatever that means...

but to anwser your question if you disobey the law and when then when law inforcement shows up you start a quasi-battle situation with them then yes....i expect you take your chances with what might happen to you....


and here i was thinking that those on the right were for strong police and anti crime actions....

The FBI were wrong, IMO. The Davidians may have been even more wrong, but the FBI lied, and that is unecaptable.

There have been other instances of the American goverment using state sponsored terrorism. In any war where civilians were delebratly targeted, that was terrorism. I certaintly view many of the actions commited by the US army against American Indians, in particular the ones already in the reservations (Wounded Knee, etc.) to be terrorism.


Gawain Jesus was about peace yes. But part of the Bible is the Old Testament, and that could (and was) used to justify violence. If there was just the old Testament, I'd agree with you, but because there is the very violent Old Testament, then it is not all about peace.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

That is absolutely no reason for the FBI to go in and kill them all, including women and children.

---

Strange that you accused John Pilger of slander when making a similar accusation about the marines in Fallujah. Do you really believe the FBI killed everyone in Waco? The CBS material that Gawain cites seem to mentions only two shots. Or are you using "kill", in the same way some use it to say George W. Bush "killed" 100,000 in Iraq?

There is no basis to draw relativity. The FBI is not a military organization and the Branch Davidian siege was not a wartime situation.

So only soldiers are allowed to murder innocents and get away with it?

Quote:

---

Gawain Jesus was about peace yes. But part of the Bible is the Old Testament, and that could (and was) used to justify violence. If there was just the old Testament, I'd agree with you, but because there is the very violent Old Testament, then it is not all about peace.

---

I take you mean if there were only the new testament do you not? The words of Jesus are all about peace. Christianity is not based on the old testament but on the words of Christ otherwise we would be Jews.

Yes, I meant only the New Testament. And Gawain, I already said I agree with you, Jesus was about peace. But because it includes the Old Testament, which potrays a very mean and violent god, and similiary violent followers, there is easily room to find allowance of violence.

Quote:

---

Yes, I meant only the New Testament. And Gawain, I already said I agree with you, Jesus was about peace. But because it includes the Old Testament, which potrays a very mean and violent god, and similiary violent followers, there is easily room to find allowance of violence.

---

I never said you cant find allownaces for violence in the bible but that you cant find them in the words of Jesus. Christains do not follow the old testament other than the 10 commandments.

Then why are there Christians that believe that homosexuality is abomnation? Does Jesus say that, or is it all stuff from the Old Testament?
Besides, even the New Testament isn't Jesus's words, so its more like following the words of the followers of Christ, as I understand it.

Quote:

---

Then why are there Christians that believe that homosexuality is abomnation? Does Jesus say that, or is it all stuff from the Old Testament?

---

Good question

Quote:

---

Jesus' teaching on sexual matters

Secondly, Jesus appears to have been quite rigorous in applying what we would call Old Testament teaching or Torah, often called `the Law', in matters of sexual behaviour. According to Matthew, Jesus quoted and affirmed the seventh commandment, "thou shalt not commit adultery", parallelling it with murder and theft; he intensified that commandment in the Sermon on the Mount; he generalised about the culture of his day as "an adulterous and sinful generation"; he appears to have used the term "adultery" inclusively to refer broadly to sexual immorality; and he was specific in spelling out his view on divorce and remarriage in the context of his time. (Matthew 19:18; 15:19; 5:27 28; 5:32; 19:9.)

Therefore when our Lord Jesus Christ spoke about adultery, we should not limit his teaching only to extramarital heterosexual intercourse but assume that he was speaking about sexual immorality in general (including the particular breaches of morality referred to in the Old Testament), unless he is shown clearly to be doing otherwise.

In the debate between the rabbinic schools of Shammai and Hillel about the grounds on which a man may divorce a woman (Mathew 5:31, 32; 19:3ff.), Jesus transcended the debate by taking his hearers back to first principles and reaffirming the divine plan of male/female complementarity cemented and expressed in lifelong marriage.

"Have you never read that in the beginning the creator made them male and female? . That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and the two become one flesh" (Mt 19:4f)

But it is also true that the effect of Jesus' teaching was a rigorous reaffirmation of the traditional place of marriage in Judaism. While Jesus' teaching does not completely exclude either divorce or marriage after divorce, it forcefully deprives men of the easy option. Perhaps that is the secret, because the tension between Jesus' apparent personal warmth towards those entangled in immorality and the rigour of his teaching about divorce and adultery is only resolved if the effect of his teaching is to protect the weak and the abused especially in the area of sex and relationships - especially women.



2.3 Jesus and homosexuality

Thirdly, we hear it said that Jesus made no reference to homosexuals or homosexuality - although that is questionable in light of the fact that he seems to have commended two and only two possible ways of life for his followers: lifelong heterosexual marriage, or consecrated celibate singleness (Matthew 19: 10 - 12). "While some are incapable of marriage because they were born so . There are others who have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let those accept who can".

It is always dangerous to argue from silence but we must surely say that the reason why much of Jesus' teaching is preserved in the Gospels at all is because it was striking or novel, and aroused controversy. If Jesus had wanted to say something as novel and challenging about homosexuals as he did about women, we should certainly expect to find some trace of that in the records. The fact that there appears to be none would suggest either that the matter was not of great interest to him, or that he was entirely comfortable with the moral stance inherited from his ancestors.

On the evidence, the least probable scenario is that our Lord Jesus Christ would have legitimised homosexual conduct.

---

No offense man, but that guy is making assumptions, and he is even more likely to mix up Jesus's message than the writers of the Bible.
This in particular is just silly:

Quote:

---

If Jesus had wanted to say something as novel and challenging about homosexuals as he did about women, we should certainly expect to find some trace of that in the records. The fact that there appears to be none would suggest either that the matter was not of great interest to him, or that he was entirely comfortable with the moral stance inherited from his ancestors.

---

There were many bibles not included into the current one, so who it is foolish to assume that any mention of him about gays will result in "some trace of that in the records".

This is also quite odd to me:

Quote:

---

Therefore when our Lord Jesus Christ spoke about adultery, we should not limit his teaching only to extramarital heterosexual intercourse but assume that he was speaking about sexual immorality in general (including the particular breaches of morality referred to in the Old Testament), unless he is shown clearly to be doing otherwise.

---

Which is it, do Christians follow what Jesus says, or just assume that he meant all "sexual immorality"?

Quote:

---

Which is it, do Christians follow what Jesus says, or just assume that he meant all "sexual immorality"?

---

This stuff is from the Anglican Church. Would you like me to post the whole article? . I though what he was saying was pretty clear and obvious.

Wasn't homosexuality (okay, bisexuality) still around in Judea in Jesus' time from the Greeks? I have always thought there was some... If so, it seems to me Jesus would have noticed it and mentioned something about it...

I'm just curious. I really don't know about that particular part of Greek culture and its spread.

Azi

Quote:

---

Wasn't homosexuality (okay, bisexuality) still around in Judea in Jesus' time from the Greeks?

---

In a word NO. That is if you came out of the closet they would let you life but take away most of your rights as a citizen. If you stayed in the closet and they caught you death could be the penalty. They practised Pedestry(sp) which is something quite different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

There is no basis to draw relativity. The FBI is not a military organization and the Branch Davidian siege was not a wartime situation.

---

I think there is... :bow: