Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Would it be racist if US started demolishing family homes of only jewish violent killers?

  1. #1

    Would it be racist if US started demolishing family homes of only jewish violent killers?

    Would it be racist if US started demolishing family homes of only jewish killers/mass defrauders/violent criminals etc to deter such crimes (and did not apply same familial punishment to non-jewish criminals involved in similar crimes)?

    For example, for crimes like these where criminals cannot be brought to justice in the US:

    The American-Israeli killer who nearly caused a diplomatic crisis
    By Haaretz | Feb. 23, 2014 | 9:10 PM
    His case caused a diplomatic crisis between Israel and the U.S. – and subsequently prompted a change in Israel's extradition law – after he evaded arrest in the U.S. and made his way to Israel, where he was eligible for automatic citizenship as the son of an Israeli national.
    Israel's refusal to extradite him, which was supported by the Israeli Supreme Court on the basis of a 1978 law banning the extradition of Israeli citizens, led to threats from Congress to withhold aid to Israel and a period of frosty relations with then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.
    According to police, Needle allegedly incapacitated Tello with a stun gun and then choked and stabbed him, before finally beating Tello to death with a sawed-off shotgun. The two murderers then stored the body of Tello in Sheinbein's garage, where they mutilated the body by dismembering the victim's limbs and burning the body so that Tello could not be identified as the victim.
    http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/1.575954


    Charged with fraud, two LA Jews abscond to Israel
    The Times of Israel
    Feb 4, 2014 - NEW YORK — Two Los Angeles Jews charged with participating in a $33 million bank fraud have fled to Israel.


    Above question is for all zionists who support below Israeli practice of collective punishment:



    Haaretz.com @haaretzcom · 3h 3 hours ago
    Netanyahu orders demolition of homes of 2 Palestinians behind Jerusalem attack
    http://htz.li/PZ

    But this kind of collective punishment seems like a one way street only applied when suspects are non-jewish:

    Dad of Slain Palestinian Teen: Demolish Murder Suspects' Homes
    EAST JERUSALEM - The father of a Palestinian teen who was burned to death by suspected Jewish extremists said justice would only be done if Israel demolished the homes those responsible for the killing. “Justice is when they destroy their houses just like they destroyed the houses of the suspects in Hebron,” Hussein Abu Khdeir said on Monday
    http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/wes...-homes-n149436








    Related

    Leftist militants claim responsibility for Jerusalem synagogue attack


    Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine says two of its members killed four Israelis at a west Jerusalem synagogue on Tuesday

    Tuesday 18 Nov 2014


    Israeli security personnel search a religious Jewish Yeshiva next to a synagogue, where a suspected Palestinian attack took place, in Jerusalem, November 18, 2014 (Photo: Reuters)


    Related

    Palestinian bus driver found hanged in Jerusalem

    Israel will never limit E.Jerusalem settlement building: FM

    Israel lifts age bar on Jerusalem mosque prayers: Police


    The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) has claimed responsibility for an attack that left four people dead at a synagogue in Jerusalem on Tuesday, Al-Arabiya news reported. "The Abu Ali Mustafa Brigades, the armed wing of the PFLP, announce that both attackers were PFLP members," the group said in a statement.
    The PFLP is revolutionary leftist organisation founded in 1967. It was known for its armed attacks on Israeli targets and aircraft hijackings. Its armed brigade, Abu Ali Mustafa, declared responsibility for many attacks during the Al-Aqsa Intifada in 2000.
    Two Palestinians armed with a gun and axes burst into a Jerusalem synagogue on Tuesday morning and killed four Israelis before being shot dead, in the deadliest attack in the city in years.
    The attack came as months of unrest gripped the city's annexed Arab eastern sector which has resulted in a string of deadly attacks by lone Palestinians.



    Three of the victims held dual US-Israeli citizenship and the fourth was a dual Israeli-British citizen
    The Americans were named as Moshe Twersky, Aryeh Kopinsky and Calman Levine. The British victim was Avraham Goldberg, who had lived in Golders Green in north London before emigrating to Israel in the 1990s. A Canadian was among the injured.
    Kerry issues angry condemnation
    The US has issued a forthright condemnation of the attack, AP reports.
    US secretary of state John Kerry said:
    Innocent people who had come to worship died in the sanctuary of a synagogue. They were hatcheted, hacked and murdered in that holy place in an act of pure terror and senseless brutality and murder. I call on Palestinians at every single level of leadership to condemn this in the most powerful terms. This violence has no place anywhere, particularly after the discussion that we just had the other day in Amman.
    http://www.theguardian.com/world/mid...k-live-updates


    Checking in for a flight has never been the same since 1967
    Terrorism's Christian Godfather - Time.com


    George Habash attacks a U.S.-sponsored Israeli-Palestinian peace plan during a speech in Beirut, March 11, 1979

    "Habash's group, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palest ine (PFLP), pioneered the hi jacking of airplanes as a Middle East terror tactic — one eventually employed by the al-Qaeda hi jackers on 9/11 — way back in 1968 when three P F L P armed operatives commandeered an Israel i El Al ai rliner enroute from Rome to Tel Aviv. Checking in for a flight has never been the same since.

    Many PFLP operations remain etched into history as some of the most infamous acts of terrorism. In 1970, PFLP terrorists hijacked four air liners at one time, flew three of them to Jordan, blew them up, and triggered the Black September civil war between Jordan's Hashemite monarchy and Palestinian guerrillas. In 1972, Japanese Red Army terrorists working with the PFLP massacred 24 people at Israel's Lod International Air port (now called B e n G u r i o n International Air port).

    What led Habash, a Christian physician — hence his nickname al-Hakim or the doctor — into such a life, of revolution, of killing? The son of a well-to-do merchant, he was trained at the American University of Beirut, the most liberal university in the Middle East then as now. His background was almost identical to that of his best friend, Wadia Haddad, the No. 2 in the PFLP and the operational genius and passionate proponent of the group's terrorist acts. When I asked Habash that question during a series of interviews many years ago, he simply told me about his personal experiences when his family lost its home during israel's 1948 War of Independence, what the Palestinians call the C a t a s t r o p h e."

    http://content.time.com/time/world/a...707366,00.html


    Israeli Forces Kill Palestinian Man in West Bank Clash
    New York Times-Nov 11, 2014

    Palestinian bus driver found hanged was murdered
    Daily Mail-Nov 17, 2014
    Youssef al-Ramouni, a 32-year-old father-of-two, was found dead at the start of the route he was supposed to have driven late on Sunday, in an area of Jerusalem close to Jewish settlements and Palestinian neighbourhoods.




  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2

  4. #3
    tephen M. Walt
    Professor of International Affairs, Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government


    AIPAC Is the Only Explanation for America's Morally Bankrupt Israel Policy

    Posted: 07/22/2014 1:59 pm EDT Updated: 09/21/2014 5:59 am EDT




    The official name for Israel's latest assault on Gaza is "Operation Protective Edge." A better name would be "Operation Déjà Vu." As it has on several prior occasions, Israel is using weapons provided by U.S. taxpayers to bombard the captive and impoverished Palestinians in Gaza, where the death toll now exceeds 500. As usual, the U.S. government is siding with Israel, even though most American leaders understand Israel instigated the latest round of violence, is not acting with restraint, and that its actions make Washington look callous and hypocritical in the eyes of most of the world.
    This Orwellian situation is eloquent testimony to the continued political clout of AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) and the other hardline elements of the Israel lobby. There is no other plausible explanation for the supine behavior of the U.S. Congress--including some of its most "progressive" members--or the shallow hypocrisy of the Obama administration, especially those officials known for their purported commitment to human rights.
    The immediate cause of this latest one-sided bloodletting was the kidnapping and murder of three Israeli hikers in the occupied West Bank, followed shortly thereafter by the kidnapping and fatal burning of a Palestinian teenager by several Israelis. According to J.J. Goldberg's reporting in the Jewish newspaper Forward, the Netanyahu government blamed Hamas for the kidnappings without evidence and pretended the kidnapped Israelis were still alive for several weeks, even though there was evidence indicating the victims were already dead. It perpetrated this deception in order to whip up anti-Arab sentiment and make it easier to justify punitive operations in the West Bank and Gaza.
    And why did Netanyahu decide to go on another rampage in Gaza? As Nathan Thrall of the International Crisis Group points out, the real motive is neither vengeance nor a desire to protect Israel from Hamas' rocket fire, which has been virtually non-existent over the past two years and is largely ineffectual anyway. Netanyahu's real purpose was to undermine the recent agreement between Hamas and Fatah for a unity government. Given Netanyahu's personal commitment to keeping the West Bank and creating a "greater Israel," the last thing he wants is a unified Palestinian leadership that might press him to get serious about a two-state solution. Ergo, he sought to isolate and severely damage Hamas and drive a new wedge between the two Palestinian factions.
    Behind all these maneuvers looms Israel's occupation of Palestine, now in its fifth decade. Not content with having ethnically cleansed hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in 1948 and 1967 and not satisfied with owning eighty-two percent of Mandatory Palestine, every Israeli government since 1967 has built or expanded settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem while providing generous subsidies to the 600,000-plus Jews who have moved there in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Two weeks ago, Netanyahu confirmed what many have long suspected: he is dead set against a two-state solution and will never--repeat never--allow it to happen while he is in office. Given that Netanyahu is probably the most moderate member of his own Cabinet and that Israel's political system is marching steadily rightward, the two-state solution is a gone goose.
    Worst of all, the deaths of hundreds more Palestinians and a small number of Israelis will change almost nothing. Hamas is not going to disband. When this latest round of fighting ends, the 4.4 million Palestinians who live in the West Bank and Gaza will still be Israel's de facto prisoners and still be denied basic human rights. But they are not going to leave, mainly because Palestine is their homeland, but also because they have nowhere to go, especially given the turmoil in other parts of the Middle East.
    Eventually another ceasefire will be negotiated. The dead will be buried, the wounded will recover, the tunnels now being destroyed will be rebuilt, and Hamas will replenish its stockpile of missiles and rockets. The stage will then be set for another round of fighting, and Israel will have moved further down the road to becoming a full-fledged apartheid state.
    Meanwhile, U.S. politicians and policymakers continue to back a brutal military campaign whose primary purpose is not to defend Israel but rather to protect its longstanding effort to colonize the West Bank. Amazingly, they continue to support Israel unreservedly even though every U.S. president since Lyndon Johnson has opposed Israel's settlements project, and the past three American presidents--Clinton, Bush and Obama--have all worked hard for the two-state solution that Israeli policy has now made impossible.

    "The explanation for America's impotent and morally bankrupt policy is the political clout of the Israel lobby."

    Yet as soon as fighting starts, and even if Israel instigates it, AIPAC demands that Washington march in lockstep with Tel Aviv. Congress invariably rushes to pass new resolutions endorsing whatever Israel decides to do. Even though it is mostly Palestinians who are dying, White House officials rush to proclaim that Israel has "the right to defend itself," and Obama himself won't go beyond expressing "concern" about what is happening. Of course Israelis have the right to defend themselves, but Palestinians not only have the same right, they have the right to resist the occupation. To put this another way, Israel does not have the right to keep its Palestinian subjects in permanent subjugation. But try finding someone on Capitol Hill who will acknowledge this simple fact.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stephe...b_5607883.html

  5. #4
    Full stop. Anti-any-government protesters.... Done.



    Our government get's away with it.

  6. #5
    I think we just call it real estate over here. I never did really understand the use of the term "settlers". Scwewy...

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Natural Citizen View Post
    I think we just call it real estate over here. I never did really understand the use of the term "settlers". Scwewy...
    I'm pretty sure when this country was less than 100yrs old they still called many people here "settlers".

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by specsaregood View Post
    I'm pretty sure when this country was less than 100yrs old they still called many people here "settlers".
    Pretty sure that it was government "grants." Every Monarch made a claim to this soil and defended those claims. Including the Federal government.

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by specsaregood View Post
    I'm pretty sure when this country was less than 100yrs old they still called many people here "settlers".
    NDNs didn't call them settlers. Heh.

    Besides...this has been going on over there for centuries.
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 11-21-2014 at 03:11 PM.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by phill4paul View Post
    Full stop. Anti-any-government protesters.... Done.



    Our government get's away with it.

    The Moral Promise of Freedom

    by Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX)
    The Free Market
    March 1994

    The moral promise of a free society involves the boundaries of private property. The promise is this: property boundaries cannot be legally invaded or trampled upon. When property is protected, people can keep the fruits of their labor and investment, and not have them plundered by others. People can own land, for example, and this land can be used as the owners see fit. Private property allows wide latitude for experimentation. Property holders can form communities with internal cultures. Just as business can conduct its own affairs, people can separate themselves out entirely from the rest of society if they so desire. They need only respect the rights of others to do the same.

    It's the nature of private property and a free society that it allows room for diversity of work, modes of production, and ways of life. That's how Mr. Jefferson wanted it, and that's what the authors of the Constitution promised. In the sixties, for example, hippie communes sprang up all over the country. The participants were eccentric and the utopias didn't work, but the attempts were tolerated by society and state.

    Today the promise of private property is routinely violated by both private criminals and government. The attack on property began subtly at first, but today it has become explicit, sometimes brutal, and sometimes even deadly.

    The community of faith that once lived at Mount Carmel in Waco, Texas, believed the promise of free society. They chose to separate themselves from society, as so many others have done in our nation's history. This was not allowed in Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, or Maoist China. That's one reason we regard these regimes as tyrannical.

    Yet in its dealings with the Waco religious dissenters, the central government revealed that it has become intractably opposed to any individual or group that represents a challenge to its singular authority. To counter this challenge, the central government resorted to tactics that resulted in the death of 86 men, women, and children. As for the survivors, the government has put them on trial.

    This sort of brutality is inevitable in a system of absolute and centralized power. A government that invades private business by demanding confiscatory taxes, imposes unbearable regulations, and rules over business culture through pervasive labor controls, builds an appetite for even more power. As the power builds, so does the extent of corruption at the top and the disinformation that covers up the truth about its tyranny.

    So it was in Waco, where the tragic events combined all the elements of a government out of control. Most of what the public thinks it knows about David Koresh, the group's spiritual leader, is false. But as with war, military invasions, and other acts of state – as J.S. Griffey of the University of Houston argued in an outstanding article in the Southern Partisan – the first impression is the one that lasts.

    For example, most people probably believe that the government attacked the Waco Christians because they were "stockpiling" weapons. Were they? Texans own 60 million firearms, about 3.5 per person. At Mt. Carmel there were two firearms per person, most of them locked away. The rest of their protection consisted of hay bales and plywood.

    The stockpiling accusation was an act of projection, for the real stockpiler was the government. In the attack on Waco, agents used MI 13 personnel carriers, M2AO Bradley fighting vehicles, Sikorsky Blackhawks, Apache and UH-1 Bell helicopters, Abrams MI tanks, 7.62mm machine guns, FBI SWAT snipers, two varieties of hand grenades, and the FBI's psychological warfare experts. The government even fired canisters of CS gas, banned in warfare by international treaty, through windows and walls.

    The BATF got their helicopters from the Texas National Guard. Under the law, the military cannot be involved in domestic law enforcement. But a special provision of the U.S. Code allows the government to use military equipment in drug cases. So the BATF told Texas governor Ann Richards that they suspected Mount Carmel had a drug lab. This canard was not in the BATF's search warrants and it hasn't been mentioned since.

    Did Koresh want a confrontation with law enforcement agents? All evidence indicates he desired good relations with the law. In 1992, Koresh had actually invited the BATF into the compound so agents could see for themselves. But the government reneged. "Why do you all have to be so big all the time?" Koresh asked the FBI during the month-long standoff. "Why didn't you just talk to me?"

    Did the community have a death wish? Twenty minutes before the fire began, the community hung out a sign reading: "We want our phones fixed." (The government had cut them off, along with the electricity.) That's not a message sent by people hungering for the Apocalypse. None of the survivors report discussion of suicide plans.

    There is still no evidence that the religious people set the fire that destroyed their building. The place was a firetrap, entirely made of wood and sealed shut. Since the government had cut off their electricity, lanterns were their only light. The government shot out the windows, so sheets were their only protection from the weather. The tanks that battered the building probably set the fire, either accidentally or deliberately.

    The initial raid was on February 28, 1993. Several people say the government shot through the roof from a helicopter, but we cannot know for sure. The physical evidence is reduced to ashes, and the government plowed the land over a week after the home went up in flames.

    As the standoff continued, the women and children were upstairs because they were afraid of the government. The tanks destroyed the stairways that would have allowed them to escape the fire. The underground shelter was destroyed as well.

    After the fire, the FBI made three claims it later retracted. First, the Bureau said that two agents saw community members lighting a fire. Second, the Bureau said one agent saw someone dressed in black "cupping his hands," as if to light a fire. Third, the Bureau said some members trying to flee the fire were shot by others. All assertions were false and were subsequently dropped.

    The Justice Department contributed its share of lies. Spokesmen said an "independent arson investigator" concluded that members of the community started the fire. But the "independent investigator" turned out to be Paul Gray, an agent for the BATF from 1962 to 1990 whose wife stills works for the agency as secretary to the man who planned the raid. They apparently could not be sure a genuinely independent investigator would come to the preordained conclusion.

    The stated purpose of the raid was to save children from abuse. Yet Janet Reno lied about that too. The information she used was already discredited, and she later admitted it. The real child abuse was committed by the government: to harass community members, the FBI turned on massive floodlights at night and played recordings of Buddhist chants, dental drills, and screaming, slaughtered rabbits. Reno herself ordered the house to be saturated with CS gas, knowing that the community's gas masks couldn't fit the children.

    In ways that have become typical, the media and government worked together in this disaster. One day before the raid, the Waco Tribune-Herald started a series on "The Sinful Messiah." On the morning of February 28, 1993, before BATF arrived at Mt. Carmel, at least 11 reporters were on the scene already. After the religious community was torched, the entire media participated in the beatification of Janet Reno for her actions in Waco.

    The consequences for the victims were public humiliation and death. There were zero consequences for the perpetrators, unless we consider the three agents who were suspended with pay and perks, which is no punishment at all.

    The methods and strategies of the government's assault against Waco had been used for years by the military, but against foreign governments and their leaders, not against the domestic citizenry. The most familiar case of foreign intrigue was the government's attack on Manuel Noriega, in which it used similar tactics (blaring music, planting evidence, spreading disinformation), and therein lies the connection between foreign policy and domestic. Anything a government allows itself to do to foreign countries will eventually be done at home. That's one reason George Washington warned us against foreign entanglements.

    We may never know the full truth about Waco or the extent of government perfidy, but we can draw lessons from the experience. This particular event was a fiasco, but it also tells something about what our government has become: "the organizer-in-chief of society," as Bertrand de Jouvenel said, which is "making its monopoly of this role ever more complete." It is a parasite and a monster that acts to protect itself. Mises was right: government's nature is coercive. It is "beating, killing, hanging." Coercion is necessary in society to protect the rights of property holders against those who do not respect property. But when government itself become the source of arbitrary violence, we have tyranny. That's why unchecked power should never be invested in a centralized government, even one with a democratic mandate. This power will invariably be exercised at the expense of peaceful social relations.

    In its dealings with the community of believers at Mount Carmel, the central government abandoned the moral promise of a free society, and, as all tyrannies eventually do, ignored its own standards of law and ethics. But it paid the price of losing some measure of public confidence, which is already at historic lows. A government that governs by fear alone eventually finds itself unable to govern at all.

    Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.
    No one here wanted to be the Billionaire.

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Natural Citizen View Post
    NDNs didn't call them settlers. Heh.

    Besides...this has been going on over there for centuries.
    they've been calling em settlers over there for centuries?

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by specsaregood View Post
    they've been calling em settlers over there for centuries?
    Is that what I said? I don't think that's what I said, specs. Hey, did you know that even Columbus took the much longer, might fall off the edge of the Earth, route just to avoid those folks? True story. now, that's saying something when a feller would rather take a chance at falling off the edge of the Earth rather than to get too close to those people.

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Natural Citizen View Post
    Is that what I said? I don't think that's what I said, specs. Hey, did you know that even Columbus took the much longer, might fall off the edge of the Earth, route just to avoid those folks? True story. now, that's saying something when a feller would rather take a chance at falling off the edge of the Earth rather than to get too close to those people.
    TBH, I don't know what you are saying half the time. I was talking about the use of the term settlers, are you saying you were changing the context of the conversation?

    You aren't still buying into that "they thought the earth was flat" fairytale, right? and who are "those" people?

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Indy Vidual View Post
    The Moral Promise of Freedom

    by Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX)
    The Free Market
    March 1994

    The moral promise of a free society involves the boundaries of private property. The promise is this: property boundaries cannot be legally invaded or trampled upon. When property is protected, people can keep the fruits of their labor and investment, and not have them plundered by others. People can own land, for example, and this land can be used as the owners see fit. Private property allows wide latitude for experimentation. Property holders can form communities with internal cultures. Just as business can conduct its own affairs, people can separate themselves out entirely from the rest of society if they so desire. They need only respect the rights of others to do the same.

    It's the nature of private property and a free society that it allows room for diversity of work, modes of production, and ways of life. That's how Mr. Jefferson wanted it, and that's what the authors of the Constitution promised. In the sixties, for example, hippie communes sprang up all over the country. The participants were eccentric and the utopias didn't work, but the attempts were tolerated by society and state.

    Today the promise of private property is routinely violated by both private criminals and government. The attack on property began subtly at first, but today it has become explicit, sometimes brutal, and sometimes even deadly.

    The community of faith that once lived at Mount Carmel in Waco, Texas, believed the promise of free society. They chose to separate themselves from society, as so many others have done in our nation's history. This was not allowed in Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, or Maoist China. That's one reason we regard these regimes as tyrannical.

    Yet in its dealings with the Waco religious dissenters, the central government revealed that it has become intractably opposed to any individual or group that represents a challenge to its singular authority. To counter this challenge, the central government resorted to tactics that resulted in the death of 86 men, women, and children. As for the survivors, the government has put them on trial.

    This sort of brutality is inevitable in a system of absolute and centralized power. A government that invades private business by demanding confiscatory taxes, imposes unbearable regulations, and rules over business culture through pervasive labor controls, builds an appetite for even more power. As the power builds, so does the extent of corruption at the top and the disinformation that covers up the truth about its tyranny.

    So it was in Waco, where the tragic events combined all the elements of a government out of control. Most of what the public thinks it knows about David Koresh, the group's spiritual leader, is false. But as with war, military invasions, and other acts of state – as J.S. Griffey of the University of Houston argued in an outstanding article in the Southern Partisan – the first impression is the one that lasts.

    For example, most people probably believe that the government attacked the Waco Christians because they were "stockpiling" weapons. Were they? Texans own 60 million firearms, about 3.5 per person. At Mt. Carmel there were two firearms per person, most of them locked away. The rest of their protection consisted of hay bales and plywood.

    The stockpiling accusation was an act of projection, for the real stockpiler was the government. In the attack on Waco, agents used MI 13 personnel carriers, M2AO Bradley fighting vehicles, Sikorsky Blackhawks, Apache and UH-1 Bell helicopters, Abrams MI tanks, 7.62mm machine guns, FBI SWAT snipers, two varieties of hand grenades, and the FBI's psychological warfare experts. The government even fired canisters of CS gas, banned in warfare by international treaty, through windows and walls.

    The BATF got their helicopters from the Texas National Guard. Under the law, the military cannot be involved in domestic law enforcement. But a special provision of the U.S. Code allows the government to use military equipment in drug cases. So the BATF told Texas governor Ann Richards that they suspected Mount Carmel had a drug lab. This canard was not in the BATF's search warrants and it hasn't been mentioned since.

    Did Koresh want a confrontation with law enforcement agents? All evidence indicates he desired good relations with the law. In 1992, Koresh had actually invited the BATF into the compound so agents could see for themselves. But the government reneged. "Why do you all have to be so big all the time?" Koresh asked the FBI during the month-long standoff. "Why didn't you just talk to me?"

    Did the community have a death wish? Twenty minutes before the fire began, the community hung out a sign reading: "We want our phones fixed." (The government had cut them off, along with the electricity.) That's not a message sent by people hungering for the Apocalypse. None of the survivors report discussion of suicide plans.

    There is still no evidence that the religious people set the fire that destroyed their building. The place was a firetrap, entirely made of wood and sealed shut. Since the government had cut off their electricity, lanterns were their only light. The government shot out the windows, so sheets were their only protection from the weather. The tanks that battered the building probably set the fire, either accidentally or deliberately.

    The initial raid was on February 28, 1993. Several people say the government shot through the roof from a helicopter, but we cannot know for sure. The physical evidence is reduced to ashes, and the government plowed the land over a week after the home went up in flames.

    As the standoff continued, the women and children were upstairs because they were afraid of the government. The tanks destroyed the stairways that would have allowed them to escape the fire. The underground shelter was destroyed as well.

    After the fire, the FBI made three claims it later retracted. First, the Bureau said that two agents saw community members lighting a fire. Second, the Bureau said one agent saw someone dressed in black "cupping his hands," as if to light a fire. Third, the Bureau said some members trying to flee the fire were shot by others. All assertions were false and were subsequently dropped.

    The Justice Department contributed its share of lies. Spokesmen said an "independent arson investigator" concluded that members of the community started the fire. But the "independent investigator" turned out to be Paul Gray, an agent for the BATF from 1962 to 1990 whose wife stills works for the agency as secretary to the man who planned the raid. They apparently could not be sure a genuinely independent investigator would come to the preordained conclusion.

    The stated purpose of the raid was to save children from abuse. Yet Janet Reno lied about that too. The information she used was already discredited, and she later admitted it. The real child abuse was committed by the government: to harass community members, the FBI turned on massive floodlights at night and played recordings of Buddhist chants, dental drills, and screaming, slaughtered rabbits. Reno herself ordered the house to be saturated with CS gas, knowing that the community's gas masks couldn't fit the children.

    In ways that have become typical, the media and government worked together in this disaster. One day before the raid, the Waco Tribune-Herald started a series on "The Sinful Messiah." On the morning of February 28, 1993, before BATF arrived at Mt. Carmel, at least 11 reporters were on the scene already. After the religious community was torched, the entire media participated in the beatification of Janet Reno for her actions in Waco.

    The consequences for the victims were public humiliation and death. There were zero consequences for the perpetrators, unless we consider the three agents who were suspended with pay and perks, which is no punishment at all.

    The methods and strategies of the government's assault against Waco had been used for years by the military, but against foreign governments and their leaders, not against the domestic citizenry. The most familiar case of foreign intrigue was the government's attack on Manuel Noriega, in which it used similar tactics (blaring music, planting evidence, spreading disinformation), and therein lies the connection between foreign policy and domestic. Anything a government allows itself to do to foreign countries will eventually be done at home. That's one reason George Washington warned us against foreign entanglements.

    We may never know the full truth about Waco or the extent of government perfidy, but we can draw lessons from the experience. This particular event was a fiasco, but it also tells something about what our government has become: "the organizer-in-chief of society," as Bertrand de Jouvenel said, which is "making its monopoly of this role ever more complete." It is a parasite and a monster that acts to protect itself. Mises was right: government's nature is coercive. It is "beating, killing, hanging." Coercion is necessary in society to protect the rights of property holders against those who do not respect property. But when government itself become the source of arbitrary violence, we have tyranny. That's why unchecked power should never be invested in a centralized government, even one with a democratic mandate. This power will invariably be exercised at the expense of peaceful social relations.

    In its dealings with the community of believers at Mount Carmel, the central government abandoned the moral promise of a free society, and, as all tyrannies eventually do, ignored its own standards of law and ethics. But it paid the price of losing some measure of public confidence, which is already at historic lows. A government that governs by fear alone eventually finds itself unable to govern at all.

    Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.
    I could snip for some relevance. However, the whole should remain intact.


    Usually now we get the Waco story thrown in as "the example". Waco? OK...I'm tracking with you...that did not need to happen. But lets take it further...Koresh was just minding his own business when all of a sudden for no apparent reason the evil government woke up and decided to go kick his ass......

    Really? You really believe that?

    Even if Koresh did not warrant the response he got (which is probably a valid statement), he did plenty to get himself noticed by the wrong people. So.....DON'T GET NOTICED BY THE WRONG PEOPLE. That right there is, in fact, in your control.
    "We will always win....even if we have to burn down your entire house by bombing it....we will win". Period.


    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-of-a-SWAT-cop

    Might makes right. If, if, you are an agent of the state.

  16. #14

  17. #15
    US tax payers funded racist hypocrite ****bags continue to cling to the "legal" racist practices in the only non-racist democracy in mideast:

    Israel's High Court turns down request to stop demolition of terrorists' homes

    Jan. 1, 2015 | 4:07 PM
    The remnants of the Jerusalem home of Abdel Rahman al-Shaludi, after Israeli forces razed it on Wednesday. Jan. 1, 2015 | 12:35 PM
    The High Court of Justice on Wednesday rejected a petition filed by eight human rights groups against the policy of demolishing terrorists’ homes under the section 119 of the emergency defense regulations. The justices also rejected the petitions filed by the families of those convicted in the terrorist attack at the synagogue in Jerusalem’s Har Nof neighborhood and a tractor attack in Jerusalem.
    In their petition, filed by attorney Michael Sfard, the organizations claimed that the policy has not been subject to legal review for many years, and that the time has come to examine the justification of the practice from court rulings made in the 1980s. It was also argued that since then, there have been many developments in international law, which classify destroying homes as a form of collective punishment. The petition included opinions from various experts on international law, including professors Yuval Shani, Mordechai Kremnitzer, Orna Ben Naftali, and Guy Harpaz.


    Related

    Hypocrisy in US politics



    U N I T E D N A T I O N S
    General Assembly

    Distr.
    GENERAL

    A/RES/3379 (XXX)
    10 November 1975
    Thirtieth session
    Agenda item 68


    RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY

    [on the report of the Third Committee (A/10320)]

    3379 (XXX). Elimination of all forms of racial discrimination

    Determines that zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination.

    http://www.mefacts.com/cached.asp?x_id=10584




    Israel’s Racist in Chief


    Apr 13, 2009


  18. #16
    enhanced_deficit's monomaniacal, despotic Jew-hate is really super inappropriate on RPF

    IMHO.



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.


Similar Threads

  1. Australian ABC Censors Anti-racist Jewish Intellectuals
    By moderate libertarian in forum World News & Affairs
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-08-2012, 08:59 PM
  2. Replies: 11
    Last Post: 10-30-2011, 05:16 AM
  3. U.K. court: Jewish school's entry policy is racist
    By Liberty Star in forum World News & Affairs
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-05-2009, 08:10 AM
  4. Local News LINKS Constitutional Party with Violent Racist Groups
    By bossman068410 in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 04-14-2009, 12:41 PM
  5. More stimulus stupidity: 1 billion dollars for Jewish nursing homes
    By jdmyprez_deo_vindice in forum Economy & Markets
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 02-25-2009, 05:44 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •