US launches CS Gas Attack on Seventh-day Adventist Church in Texas

[presence]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/08/mike-holmes/the-us-uses-gas-to-kill-civilians/


While some victims were shot,
most died from burns or asphyxiation as a result of the CS gas


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4scgRAJxWc


Government Killing of Civilians by Gas (http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/08/mike-holmes/the-us-uses-gas-to-kill-civilians/)

By Mike Holmes (http://www.lewrockwell.com/author/mike-holmes/?post_type=article)
August 31, 2013


One point that needs to be made, but rarely if ever mentioned, is that in the supposed rationale for US attack on Syria to avenge/prevent claimed civilian deaths by government gas attacks, the US government itself has used similar weapons openly as recently as the FBI/ATF attack on the Branch Davidian compound near Waco Texas in the spring of 1993.

76 men, women and children died in this senseless military style assault which used highly lethal military CS gas as a primary weapon. CS is not a nerve agent and it doesn’t in normal concentrations cause immediate death. But it is highly flammable, persistent and designed to incapacitate targets by causing massive biological reactions including inability to breathe, massive tearing in the eyes, nose bleeds, etc.

The Davidians were totally surrounded, posed no threat to others, and responded with weapons fire only after the ATF/FBI attacked with military style firearms. After the initial government assault was repelled, and after a long standoff, an impatient President Clinton and his Attorney General Janet Reno ordered an all-out military assault on the compound, despite the fact that the only legal justification was a single warrant for David Koresh on unproven charges. The presence of innocent group members was ignored, nor was there any planning for medical aid or fire suppression.

The rest is history. Special military tanks were used to puncture compound walls and insert large quantities of CS gas. CS gas grenades were used from military stores along with 2 metal CS pyrotechnic M651E1 shells. Other pyrotechnic devices and flammable rounds were also fired into the buildings despite known dangers of CS gas ignition and chemical changes to the CS in fires making it even more deadly.

Wikipedia has more details. The video “Rules of Engagement” makes it clear that this was a deliberate effort to kill those inside.

In the run up to the Iraq invasion and now with Syria, United States officials loudly wailed about these regimes “killing civilians” with poison gas. Despite lack of hard evidence for such use in these countries, there is no doubt that President Clinton and Reno approved this exact same tactic.

Unlike the Middle Eastern scenarios, no civil war or mass terrorist action was occurring in Waco. There were no enemy forces attacking regime outposts and military targets. Just religious dissenters who followed an unstable cult leader, who lived privately on a remote farm bothering no one.

While domestic and world reaction to the Davidian massacre ranged from shock to horror, in 1993 there were no bellicose calls for military attack on the US by other nations for this blatant violation of the rules of war, the Geneva Conventions, and legal due process. France, Britain, China and Russia did not propose UN authorization for military retaliation. Nor did the US government ever apologize but instead gave medals and honors to the government killers responsible for these horrific deaths.

While some victims were shot, most died from burns or asphyxiation as a result of the CS gas and the subsequent firestorm created when it was ignited deliberately.

So precedent is clear: the US Empire can use poison gas against peaceful religious dissenters when they do not immediately surrender to heavily armed police forces using military weapons. This is lied about, rationalized and ultimately forgotten, with the dead victims being blamed for their “suicidal actions.”
Other nations engaged in civil wars are regarded by the US Empire as guilty of “genocide” with the flimsiest of “secret evidence” of poison gas use cited as justification for military attack. Thus far American citizens have not been made privy to this supposed evidence or its source.

Does anyone doubt that faced with an active armed rebellion in the US by opponents of the Obama regime, the US government would not hesitate one millisecond to deploy CS gas or worse against rebels? The precedent is clear. Gassing civilians is approved for the Empire, but others face our wrath should they be accused by secret sources of emulating the Clinton-Reno example. US government moral outrage is reserved only for the acts of others.
After all, the US Empire can do no wrong. War is the Health of the State.

[Theocrat]

In before Sola_Fide vs. jmdrake! :D (I still love you two, hee hee!)

[tod evans]

Point well made!

[Theocrat]

Point well made!

Yes, I concur. I totally forgot about the Waco incident back in '93, in light of comparing that gas attack with the current Syrian gas attack. The only difference, perhaps, is that there hasn't arisen any evidence of which side in Syria initiated the gas attack.

[tod evans]

Yes, I concur. I totally forgot about the Waco incident back in '93, in light of comparing that gas attack with the current Syrian gas attack. The only difference, perhaps, is that there hasn't arisen any evidence of which side in Syria initiated the gas attack.

We KNOW who attacked whom in Waco....:mad:

[pcosmar]

Yes, I concur. I totally forgot about the Waco incident back in '93, in light of comparing that gas attack with the current Syrian gas attack. The only difference, perhaps, is that there hasn't arisen any evidence of which side in Syria initiated the gas attack.

Actually there is good evidence from several sources that the Rebels used it,, and very little evidence (from questionable sources) that Assad used it.

However there has been an ongoing effort from powerful interests to remove Assad for some time. And they are supplying the Rebels.

[Sola_Fide]

Most people don't know that the Branch Davidian cult was an offshoot of Seventh Day Adventism. Ellen G. White, the deceased leader of the Seventh Day Adventist cult, "prophesied" that a new prophet would come after her. David Koresh proclaimed himself as that new prophet and many Seventh Day Adventists followed him.

When you reject God by rejecting that His Word alone is the standard for truth, you stray into all kinds of error.

[enhanced_deficit]

Use of chemicals in weapons should be banned.

Use of chemical weapons in US should also be banned.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/linkableblob/3683258/data/screen-grab-of-us-police-using-pepper-spray-on-protesters-data.jpg (http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=DNb3hhSeCcbnCM&tbnid=n1rdyUgVC3oA_M:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.abc.net.au%2Fworldtoday%2Fcon tent%2F2011%2Fs3371670.htm&ei=JiIiUsXLKoju9AS2p4DYBA&bvm=bv.51495398,d.cWc&psig=AFQjCNE9L203S0LLNynZHihd5SwvK9kw_g&ust=1378055035220407)

[muh_roads]

Most people don't know that the Branch Davidian cult was an offshoot of Seventh Day Adventism. Ellen G. White, the deceased leader of the Seventh Day Adventist cult, "prophesied" that a new prophet would come after her. David Koresh proclaimed himself as that new prophet and many Seventh Day Adventists followed him.

When you reject God by rejecting that His Word alone is the standard for truth, you stray into all kinds of error.

So when people reject your version of god, then that gives the government the right to go kill them?

Fuck democracy.

[Sola_Fide]

So when people reject your version of god, then that gives the government the right to go kill them?

Fuck democracy.

Where, in anything I just said, did you get that?

[muh_roads]

Where, in anything I just said, did you get that?

"When you reject God by rejecting that His Word alone is the standard for truth, you stray into all kinds of error."

It's a tongue in cheek way of not taking responsibility, but most likely not coming to the aid of these "god rejectors" when they need it.

I have no proof you are one of those people. Just reminds me of Christians who reject gay marriage but take a quiet stand on it.

Don't make excuses for something the Government should be sued for.

[Uriel999]

In before Sola_Fide vs. jmdrake! :D (I still love you two, hee hee!)

Whoa theo have not seen you around in forever!

Also, CS gas ain't shit. I get gassed at least once a year. The trick is to breathe calmly and slowly through your teeth. Don't take shallow breaths either. Slow, full breaths.

[Sola_Fide]

"When you reject God by rejecting that His Word alone is the standard for truth, you stray into all kinds of error."

It's a tongue in cheek way of not taking responsibility, but most likely not coming to the aid of these "god rejectors" when they need it.

I'm talking about theological error sir. I'm making a theological point, not a political one. When you don't view the Scripture as the standard for truth, you follow nuts like Ellen G. White and David Koresh, and you condemn yourself.



I have no proof you are one of those people. Just reminds me of Christians who reject gay marriage but take a quiet stand on it.

Don't make excuses for something the Government should be sued for.

You're confused because you keep mixing theology and politics.

[pcosmar]

Whoa theo have not seen you around in forever!

Also, CS gas ain't shit. I get gassed at least once a year. The trick is to breathe calmly and slowly through your teeth. Don't take shallow breaths either. Slow, full breaths.

CS Gas is a problem when it either displaces oxygen,, or ignites
Especially when the only escape is covered by machine gun fire.

[pcosmar]

I'm talking about theological error sir.. I'm making a theological point, not a political one.

Well quit derailing threads with it.
They had a right to their beliefs, just as you do..
This is not about their theology,, it is about the US Gov ,murdering them. And the use of Chemical Weapons in that action.

[better-dead-than-fed]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/08/mike-holmes/the-us-uses-gas-to-kill-civilians/


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4scgRAJxWc

Is this why Syria invaded us?

[Sola_Fide]

Well quit derailing threads with it.
They had a right to their beliefs, just as you do..
This is not about their theology,, it is about the US Gov ,murdering them. And the use of Chemical Weapons in that action.

I don't view it as a derailment. This board is a board about ideas, political and otherwise. Of course, everyone has the right of their beliefs. That is without question.

[James Madison]

I don't view it as a derailment. This board is a board about ideas, political and otherwise. Of course, everyone has the right of their beliefs. That is without question.

This thread is in General Politics for a reason. If you want to discuss the theological pros and cons of Seventh-Day Adventism, please start a separate thread in the religion subforum.

[Sola_Fide]

This thread is in General Politics for a reason. If you want to discuss the theological pros and cons of Seventh-Day Adventism, please start a separate thread in the religion subforum.

That is what I usually do, but another thing I want to avoid is the thinking that Christianity is to be relegated to the "religious" part of life, and politics or philosophy is "neutral" and "normal" part of life. To me Christianity is a total worldview and as a total worldview, it competes with every other worldview at their level.

The tactic of secularists/atheists is to frame the debate as "religion vs. no religion", but the truth of reality is always "which religion".

[pcosmar]

The tactic of secularists/atheists is to frame the debate as "religion vs. no religion", but the truth of reality is always "which religion".
And that has what to do with an attack and final assault using Chemical Weapons on a peaceful church?

is it OK because you disagree with their theology?

Did they deserve death because of their belief? (because that, is the way you sounded)

Or is it blatant Hypocrisy for the US to condemn the use of CW,, when they do it themselves. (the point of the thread)

[presence]

That is what I usually do, but another thing I want to avoid is the thinking that Christianity is to be relegated to the "religious" part of life, and politics or philosophy is "neutral" and "normal" part of life. To me Christianity is a total worldview and as a total worldview, it competes with every other worldview at their level.

The tactic of secularists/atheists is to frame the debate as "religion vs. no religion", but the truth of reality is always "which religion".

Which indeed.

So which interpretation of reality was it that you ascribe to believing will never fall under the jackboot? What is Sola_Fide's personal infallible taxonomy? Have you consulted with Martin Niemöller on that belief?

[James Madison]

That is what I usually do, but another thing I want to avoid is the thinking that Christianity is to be relegated to the "religious" part of life, and politics or philosophy is "neutral" and "normal" part of life. To me Christianity is a total worldview and as a total worldview, it competes with every other worldview at their level.

The tactic of secularists/atheists is to frame the debate as "religion vs. no religion", but the truth of reality is always "which religion".

This is Ron Paul Forums, and there is a subforum designated for theological discussion. Or go start Sola_Fide Forums and you can talk about whatever you want wherever you want.

[Sola_Fide]

And that has what to do with an attack and final assault using Chemical Weapons on a peaceful church?is it OK because you disagree with their theology?

Of course not, and as a lover of total freedom of conscience and liberty, I am offended that you would ascribe that to me.


Did they deserve death because of their belief? (because that, is the way you sounded)

No, that is not the way I sounded, in any way.



Or is it blatant Hypocrisy for the US to condemn the use of CW,, when they do it themselves. (the point of the thread)

Yes, blatant hypocrisy. Absolutely evil.

[better-dead-than-fed]

serenity now

[Sola_Fide]

Which indeed.

So which interpretation of reality was it that you ascribe to believing will never fall under the jackboot?

No interpretation of reality deserves the jackboot. I believe in this freedom because I believe in the Scriptures. This is why Christianity is essential to my view of politics (which is why I can't be "quiet" about it in the general forums).



What is Sola_Fide's personal infallible taxonomy?

I strive to have a Biblical taxonomy. My interpretation cannot be infallible, but God's Word is infallible, and I am correct insofar as I am in line with God's classifications.

[AFPVet]

CS military grade tear gas is also an ingredient in some pepper sprays.

[Anti Federalist]

CS Gas is a problem when it either displaces oxygen,, or ignites
Especially when the only escape is covered by machine gun fire.

Not to mention the fact that CS, when exposed to high heat, turns into deadly hydrogen cyanide.

Breathing of which can cause muscle contractions so hard that the spine is literally broken.

This is what it did to one of the children of Waco.

http://24.media.tumblr.com/4604b3e564c02d2a827489d2f79d4c16/tumblr_mj0j4dbcHL1recmcyo1_500.jpg

[fr33]

#NoMoreFreeWacos

Do it again US and you'll have a revolution on your hands.

[kathy88]

No interpretation of reality deserves the jackboot. I believe in this freedom because I believe in the Scriptures. This is why Christianity is essential to my view of politics (which is why I can't be "quiet" about it in the general


I strive to have a Biblical taxonomy. My interpretation cannot be infallible, but God's Word is infallible, and I am correct insofar as I am in line with God's classifications.
God wants you to STFU.

[thoughtomator]

Where, in anything I just said, did you get that?

Everyone else in the world is going to read into the clear implication of your religious justification for the massacre at Waco.

I can't figure out why the hell you are on a libertarian site when you are very clearly a theocrat, opposed to all we stand for - even religious freedom, as your statement demonstrates.

Why are you here? To poison the well?

[Christian Liberty]

Everyone else in the world is going to read into the clear implication of your religious justification for the massacre at Waco.

I can't figure out why the hell you are on a libertarian site when you are very clearly a theocrat, opposed to all we stand for - even religious freedom, as your statement demonstrates.

Why are you here? To poison the well?

You, and everyone else who are calling Sola_Fide a "Theocrat" need to shut up and actually read his posts.

Sola_Fide is an ancap/voluntarist (I'm not sure what term he'd choose) who rejects the idea that God instituted the State.

You confuse religious fanaticism (For the record, I don't actually think that's a bad thing) with theocracy.

I'll admit, Sola_Fide's comment was out of place, but he never justified the government here either. And anyone who has read ANY of what he posts should know better than that. Sola_Fide detests all government murder.

If you read what he actually, you know, posted, you'll never see any hint of support for the regime in this case.

He attacked Seventh Day Adventism, and the Koresh cult, theologically. He didn't say they should have been killed.

I'll admit he sometimes does it too, but you guys go out of your way to attack him and its ridiculous. Does hearing the true gospel preached actually hurt that much?

:rolleyes:

[Christian Liberty]

Everyone else in the world is going to read into the clear implication of your religious justification for the massacre at Waco.

I can't figure out why the hell you are on a libertarian site when you are very clearly a theocrat, opposed to all we stand for - even religious freedom, as your statement demonstrates.

Why are you here? To poison the well?

Yes, the idiotic sheeple will read that into his post. And any of you who think he said that are iditoic sheeple as well.

[Teenager For Ron Paul]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3GpbBtCx7Q
skip to 2:47 if you want

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

pepper spray

[Sola_Fide]

Everyone else in the world is going to read into the clear implication of your religious justification for the massacre at Waco.

I can't figure out why the hell you are on a libertarian site when you are very clearly a theocrat, opposed to all we stand for - even religious freedom, as your statement demonstrates.

Why are you here? To poison the well?

I didn't say anything that could even remotely be construed as a justification for a government to coerce anyone for any reason.

I don't believe that. I didn't say that. Stop suggesting that I did.

[Christian Liberty]

I didn't say anything that could even remotely be construed as a justification for a government to coerce anyone for any reason.

I don't believe that. I didn't say that. Stop suggesting that I did.

Thanks for posting, you reminded me that I needed to neg rep that crap of a post.

[Christian Liberty]

I didn't say anything that could even remotely be construed as a justification for a government to coerce anyone for any reason.

I don't believe that. I didn't say that. Stop suggesting that I did.

Naturally, they confuse "God can do what he wills" with "Gov can do what it wills." That's why they lie and pretend like you're a statist.

I'm just amazed to see that mistake on RonPaulForums, of all places.

[Mani]

So we used Chemical weapons in Waco, in Vietnam, and WMD's in WWII-TWICE. And we gave them to Suddam who used them on the Kurds.


is that enough blood on the hands of the US government?


But Damn you Assad! How do you use Chemical weapons! *wink Wink* (thanks Al Ciada) Only we are allowed to do that kind of nasty shit!

[thoughtomator]

You, and everyone else who are calling Sola_Fide a "Theocrat" need to shut up and actually read his posts.

Sola_Fide is an ancap/voluntarist (I'm not sure what term he'd choose) who rejects the idea that God instituted the State.

You confuse religious fanaticism (For the record, I don't actually think that's a bad thing) with theocracy.

I'll admit, Sola_Fide's comment was out of place, but he never justified the government here either. And anyone who has read ANY of what he posts should know better than that. Sola_Fide detests all government murder.

If you read what he actually, you know, posted, you'll never see any hint of support for the regime in this case.

He attacked Seventh Day Adventism, and the Koresh cult, theologically. He didn't say they should have been killed.

I'll admit he sometimes does it too, but you guys go out of your way to attack him and its ridiculous. Does hearing the true gospel preached actually hurt that much?

:rolleyes:

It's a matter of priorities. In my view, the sane prioritization, if one held those two concerns, would be:

1) The government massacred 80+ citizens in a violent siege culminating in a fiery inferno.
2) The people who got massacred believed things that were wrong.

NOT the other way around. It would never cross my mind to attack the victims of a senseless, lawless massacre, really. And to ominously imply that they "strayed into error" in direct connection with the massacre, that the massacre was in some part excusable as a result of the victims' beliefs - that's a pretty dramatic thing, which strikes a reader as clear intent to draw that parallel.

So, no pass on that. Using this event as a venue to promote one's own theology is quite despicable, really. There is no justification for these murders, theological or otherwise. Period. I don't care if you're ancap or anything else, murder is not justifiable in any civilized creed. That's not "the true gospel", not even close. That's glee at someone else's misfortune.

I didn't share Koresh's beliefs. I still don't think it's OK to imply that if you believe wrong things, it's OK for someone to murder you. How can a man be free if he is not free to be wrong? In a case like this, a defender of liberty will protect the victims' rights to believe whatever the hell they wanted, if for no other reason than to protect his own right to do the same.

An implication that the victims' religious beliefs in any way mitigate the crime against them is not the way of liberty, it is offensive to it.

[thoughtomator]

oh dear, I appear to have dropped one of this massive mountain of points on my screen

[Sola_Fide]

So, no pass on that. Using this event as a venue to promote one's own theology is quite despicable, really. There is no justification for these murders, theological or otherwise. Period. I don't care if you're ancap or anything else, murder is not justifiable in any civilized creed. That's not "the true gospel", not even close. That's glee at someone else's misfortune.

I didn't share Koresh's beliefs. I still don't think it's OK to imply that if you believe wrong things, it's OK for someone to murder you. How can a man be free if he is not free to be wrong? In a case like this, a defender of liberty will protect the victims' rights to believe whatever the hell they wanted, if for no other reason than to protect his own right to do the same.

An implication that the victims' religious beliefs in any way mitigate the crime against them is not the way of liberty, it is offensive to it.

WHERE did I do this?

WHAT are you talking about?

[Christian Liberty]

It's a matter of priorities. In my view, the sane prioritization, if one held those two concerns, would be:

1) The government massacred 80+ citizens in a violent siege culminating in a fiery inferno.
2) The people who got massacred believed things that were wrong.

I agree with you, at least for this thread, although I understand Sola_Fide's points. Sola_Fide believes that these people are now burning eternally in Hell, which is certainly more serious than them being murdered on this earth. I'll be honest, I haven't taken enough time to read up on SDAism and what SDAs believe, so I don't know if they believe damnable heresy or not. I also don't take quite as strict a view with regards to what heresies are damnable as Sola_Fide does. So I don't necessarily actually agree with him that these people were condemned. But I can say this, considering Sola_Fide does believe that, it makes sense that that's his focus.

That said, I'll freely admit that, justified or not, Sola_Fide's post wasn't really on topic. But that's a far cry from actually justifying the attack.


NOT the other way around. It would never cross my mind to attack the victims of a senseless, lawless massacre, really. And to ominously imply that they "strayed into error" in direct connection with the massacre, that the massacre was in some part excusable as a result of the victims' beliefs - that's a pretty dramatic thing, which strikes a reader as clear intent to draw that parallel.


Its certainly not excusable, but Sola_Fide may well think that this was some sort of a divine judgment, or at least divinely predestined. That doesn't really make it acceptable. IIRC, there's something in Isaiah (Either 6 or 10) where God actually tells the Assyrians that they are committing sin by doing exactly what God predestined them to do.

So, no pass on that. Using this event as a venue to promote one's own theology is quite despicable, really. There is no justification for these murders, theological or otherwise. Period. I don't care if you're ancap or anything else, murder is not justifiable in any civilized creed. That's not "the true gospel", not even close. That's glee at someone else's misfortune.


OK. Then defend that position. Stop lying and saying Sola_Fide supports something that he does not actually support.


I didn't share Koresh's beliefs. I still don't think it's OK to imply that if you believe wrong things, it's OK for someone to murder you. How can a man be free if he is not free to be wrong? In a case like this, a defender of liberty will protect the victims' rights to believe whatever the hell they wanted, if for no other reason than to protect his own right to do the same.


Of course they will. I do, and Sola_Fide does as well. And as I've said before, I don't share all of Sola_Fide's beliefs either, but when someone on here attacks him for something he's never said, I'm going to call them out on it. When they fail at reading comprehension, I'm going to call the person in question an idiot, because ultimately, you were being an idiot when you made the comment you made. Regardless of what you think of Sola_Fide's motivations, he never defended this attack. In fact, he already clarified and agreed that it was evil.



An implication that the victims' religious beliefs in any way mitigate the crime against them is not the way of liberty, it is offensive to it.

He's not implying that at all. I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall here.

[thoughtomator]

In case it's not clear what I was talking about, this sentence falls into the really fucking creepy category. Like solidly, perfect fit.


When you reject God by rejecting that His Word alone is the standard for truth, you stray into all kinds of error.

If you don't find this sinister, you are part of the problem.

[Christian Liberty]

WHERE did I do this?

WHAT are you talking about?

I'm pretty sure he just dislikes you rather than having an actual argument.

[fr33]

Sola_Fide and FreedomFanatic, go away you idiots.

This topic is about how the Feds murdered people. We don't want to talk about your detailed religious opinions or theirs. There's a religion section for your blathering. This isn't it.

[Christian Liberty]

In case it's not clear what I was talking about, this sentence falls into the really fucking creepy category. Like solidly, perfect fit.



If you don't find this sinister, you are part of the problem.

OK, than I'm proud to be "Part of the problem." Of course an unregenerate person would make a statement like you made. Repent and believe the gospel, rather than attacking those of us who already have.

[Christian Liberty]

Sola_Fide and FreedomFanatic, go away you idiots.

This topic is about how the Feds murdered people. We don't want to talk about your detailed religious opinions or theirs. There's a religion section for your blathering. This isn't it.

Show me a single post where I actually addressed any religious belief of either the Koresh group or the SDAs. I didn't.

I attacked a certain idiot on this thread for lying about a Christian.

The Feds murdered people here. Every single person here knows that. A certain poster is trying to claim that Sola_Fide is supporting this murderous action. That's what I'm addressing here. I'm addressing the lying crap from a poster here, not the religious views of the SDAs or the Koresh group. Which are irrelevant to me, at least right now.

[Sola_Fide]

Sola_Fide and FreedomFanatic, go away you idiots.

This topic is about how the Feds murdered people. We don't want to talk about your detailed religious opinions or theirs. There's a religion section for your blathering. This isn't it.

Idiots?

Why is it acceptable for you to have a theological opinion about this, but not acceptable for a Christian to have one?

[Christian Liberty]

Idiots?

Why is it acceptable for you to have a theological opinion about this, but not acceptable for a Christian to have one?

To be fair, I don't think fr33 shared any theological opinion of his in this thread.

To be perfectly honest, I understand his point about your original post. I understand that, and completely sympathize with why, your emphasis on preaching the gospel outweighs the actual topic of the thread, but you were still off topic. The theological views of the SDAs was clearly not on topic.

If people had stuck to asking you not to post that here, I honestly would not have gotten involved. We could find another thread to discuss seventh day adventism's theological implications.

It was the lies that you supported murder that caused me to step in, not the fact that you did in fact commit spam.

[thoughtomator]

That said, I'll freely admit that, justified or not, Sola_Fide's post wasn't really on topic. But that's a far cry from actually justifying the attack.

Possible alternative explanations are few. Offer one, I'll bite.



Its certainly not excusable, but Sola_Fide may well think that this was some sort of a divine judgment, or at least divinely predestined. That doesn't really make it acceptable. IIRC, there's something in Isaiah (Either 6 or 10) where God actually tells the Assyrians that they are committing sin by doing exactly what God predestined them to do.

That's fine, but the point of contention is this: in order for his view to be compatible with liberty, he's got to respect another man's right to choose to go to Hell if he damn well pleases. If he loves liberty his every instinct should be to fight to defend that right, and to condemn offenses against it.



OK. Then defend that position. Stop lying and saying Sola_Fide supports something that he does not actually support.

Lying? It is so clear to me what his implication was, that I am having difficulty understanding how you cannot see it.




Of course they will. I do, and Sola_Fide does as well. And as I've said before, I don't share all of Sola_Fide's beliefs either, but when someone on here attacks him for something he's never said, I'm going to call them out on it. When they fail at reading comprehension, I'm going to call the person in question an idiot, because ultimately, you were being an idiot when you made the comment you made. Regardless of what you think of Sola_Fide's motivations, he never defended this attack. In fact, he already clarified and agreed that it was evil.

He's not implying that at all. I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall here.

You seem to think that what you're saying is some otherworldly stuff that other people can't understand. I understand you just fine. It's you who isn't putting two and two together to get four, so put your hubris aside and realize that introducing his personal religious conflict with the victims into the discussion of a mass murder can only reasonably be interpreted in that way. That puts his personal creed first for everybody, liberty second, and that's not how liberty works.

[fr33]

Why is it acceptable for you to have a theological opinion about this, but not acceptable for a Christian to have one?

NOBODY on this topic is talking theology except you and FF.

[Christian Liberty]

Possible alternative explanations are few. Offer one, I'll bite.



I've already told you. He believes SDAism is damnable heresy, and he was using this thread as a springboard to share that viewpoint. It was off topic spam. But it was a far cry from supporting murder, as you slanderously accused him of.



That's fine, but the point of contention is this: in order for his view to be compatible with liberty, he's got to respect another man's right to choose to go to Hell if he damn well pleases. If he loves liberty his every instinct should be to fight to defend that right, and to condemn offenses against it.


He does. Again, do you actually read anything the poster in question posts before you make dumb statements like this?

Show me somewhere, anywhere, where Sola_Fide has actually advocated force be used against an innocent person, then we'll talk.



Lying? It is so clear to me what his implication was, that I am having difficulty understanding how you cannot see it.


Because, unlike you, I've actually read his other posts, and I know he's an ancap/voluntarist who would never ever support such a thing.



You seem to think that what you're saying is some otherworldly stuff that other people can't understand. I understand you just fine. It's you who isn't putting two and two together to get four, so put your hubris aside and realize that introducing his personal religious conflict with the victims into the discussion of a mass murder can only reasonably be interpreted in that way. That puts his personal creed first for everybody, liberty second, and that's not how liberty works.

You're acting like two and two make five in this case.

Liberty includes the right to emphasize things other than liberty over liberty.

[Christian Liberty]

NOBODY on this topic is talking theology except you and FF.

He's the only one, and he made literally one post about theology. All of my posts and the rest of his posts have been defensive against a certain lying poster.

[fr33]

David Koresh's don't tread on me message to the ATF:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10gBL3PMw7o

[Sola_Fide]

NOBODY on this topic is talking theology except you and FF.

So?

Is there some forum rule that says I can't have a theological opinion on a post about politics?

If there is, show me the rule and I'll never post here again.

[Christian Liberty]

So?

Is there some forum rule that says I can't have a theological opinion on a post about politics?

If there is, show me the rule and I'll never post here again.

There is some overlap between theology and politics. But I don't see what the overlap is in this thread. Did you really need to attack the SDAs in this thread? What was the point of that?

[fr33]

So?

Is there some forum rule that says I can't have a theological opinion on a post about politics?

If there is, show me the rule and I'll never post here again.

I've never read the rules. Thankfully I'm not quite the smug asshole you are (regardless of which religion topic (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?425436-How-atheists-became-the-most-colossally-smug-and-annoying-people-on-the-planet) accuses me of being one). It's called decency and respect but apparently your doctrine did not teach such things to you.

[Christian Liberty]

I've never read the rules. Thankfully I'm not quite the smug asshole you are (regardless of which religion topic (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?425436-How-atheists-became-the-most-colossally-smug-and-annoying-people-on-the-planet) accuses me of being one). It's called decency and respect but apparently your doctrine did not teach such things to you.

In all fairness to Sola_Fide, he didn't start that thread.

[Sola_Fide]

There is some overlap between theology and politics. But I don't see what the overlap is in this thread. Did you really need to attack the SDAs in this thread? What was the point of that?

The only reason I said it is because in the Seventh Day Adventism vs. The Bible thread I pointed this out to people and I got some feedback that no one had ever heard this before. Its not an attack. Just information. Most people don't know that the Branch Davidians were Seventh Day Adventists.