This is from Sara McCarthy at World Net Daily. Some may reflexively bash "World Nut Daily" with some vauge slur or other, but hey: they wrote this, didn't they? Where else is such a vindication of the Davidian victims and incisive diagnosis of a government-gone-mad occuring? They tell it like it is. Check the number at the end of the article for your copy of the sequel to the video "Waco: The Rules of Engagement." Note that this sequel is called "Waco: A New Revelation" - NOT "The Final Prophecy," as was rumored. Pyrotechnics at Waco

Roger Waters, who wrote and sang most of Pink Floyd's best music -- "Another Brick in the Wall," "Welcome to the Machine," and other songs that have been banned in totalitarian regimes throughout the world -- is touring the United States. In a line from the song "Mother" at Star Lake Amphitheater near Pittsburgh this summer, the band roared, "Mother, should I trust the government?"

"No," yelled the crowd of 15,000 mostly 20- and 30-something concert goers.

Now, with new admissions by the FBI that after six years of denials by Janet Reno and the FBI, pyrotechnic tear gas canisters were used on the final day of the 1993 government standoff with the Branch Davidians at Waco, Texas, mistrust of government will justifiably grow, and it should soar among leftists who have been obstinately oblivious to what many view as the totalitarian instincts of the Clinton administration. Even Lynn Samuels, WABC's super-liberal talk show host, now says she'll stand with Bob Barr and Henry Hyde to impeach this president if it's shown that Bill Clinton knew that incendiary devices were used by government agents at Waco.

"This is not an assault," said the voice of a government official at the scene as an M-60 tank tore off the wall of the Branch Davidians' home and shot tear gas in their faces. To protect the 25 children inside from child abuse, U.S. federal agents harassed the Davidians and their children at night with massive floodlights, blaring recordings of screaming, slaughtered rabbits, and loudspeakers blaring Nancy Sinatra singing "These Boots Are Made For Walking." Though allegations of child abuse were never proven, and the Davidians had fewer guns per capita than the average Texan, Janet Reno authorized the agents to saturate the house with CS gas, a gas that is banned by international law as chemical warfare and which medical literature warns may cause children inhaling it "fulminating chemical pneumonia and death." Before ordering the attack, Reno was informed that gas masks wouldn't fit the children.

"I was frankly surprised to see that anyone would suggest that the Attorney General should resign because some religious fanatics murdered themselves," President Clinton said at the time. "There is unfortunately a rise in this sort of fanaticism all over the world," he continued. "And we may have to confront it again."

Incinerated in the April 19, 1993, massacre were not just what Clinton referred to as a bunch of religious fanatics and gun nuts, but a little 6-year-old girl, Serendipity Sea Jones, and Wayne Martin, a black Harvard Law School graduate, the daughter of a police officer in Hawaii, the son of a New York fireman, an Israeli named Pablo Cohen, and the eight-month-pregnant Aisha Summers, age 17, and her 1 year old daughter, Startle. On some, the roof fell in. Others were burned beyond recognition like one 7- to 8-year-old boy who, according to the Justice Department, was buried alive and suffocated in his bunker.

Jack Wheeler, a contributing editor at Strategic Investment Newsletter, summed it up quite well: "Let me state things clearly. It is one thing to be laughably incompetent, quite another to be murderously incompetent. I think the President should be impeached and the Attorney General indicted for murder. To hear how over 20 children endured a nightmare of torture by CS poison gas, and then see the Attorney General praised in Congress and hear the President ruthlessly dismiss their deaths in a tone of voice as devoid of humanity as Lenin's, has for the first time in my life made me ashamed of being an American."

Even assuming the worst, that cult leader David Koresh, an alleged paranoid with a messiah complex, was a child-abuser stockpiling weapons, and acknowledging that he and/or others within the Waco compound killed four ATF agents who were armed with a plan for a "dynamic entry" that might have involved agents shooting their way into the house, government agents were still obligated not to not use excessive force that could result in harm to the 25 children and more than 50 adults, the majority of whom were women, in order to capture Koresh. The ATF has never adequately explained why they were there with such a show of force in the first place, when David Koresh made many trips to stores in town, according to the local sheriff, and could have been apprehended there.

Like the long missing evidence of tear gas canisters, reports the Wall Street Journal, the steel front door of the house that might provide evidence on who shot first is also missing. Even if it's proven that Koresh was driven to heightened paranoia by having his phone and power cut off, by being refused medical care, being bombarded with the sounds of dentist drills and blaring rabbit screams -- driven crazy enough to shoot at federal agents and burn down his own house -- after months of planning and 51 days of a standoff, the FBI and the White House had nothing but time to come up with a reasonable solution. Many experts are claiming that government agents "should have known" what could happen.

For 51 days, FBI agents in Waco repeatedly ignored the advice of their own Behavioral Science Unit that recommended a "soft" approach. Special Agents Pete Smerick and Mark Young wrote a caution on March 5, 1993: "In traditional hostage situations, a strategy which has been successful has been negotiations coupled with ever increasing tactical presence. In this situation, however, it is believed this strategy, if carried to excess, could eventually be counterproductive and could result in loss of life." Harvard psychiatrist Alan A. Stone, one of 10 outside experts asked by the Justice Department to review the events surrounding the siege, wrote in a blistering 46-page critique that Reno was "ill-advised" in approving the final assault, calling it "a misguided and punishing law enforcement strategy that contributed to the tragic ending."

Nancy T. Ammerman, a visiting scholar at Princeton, also evaluated Waco for the Justice Department, concluding that the government's approach "was based on building up a legal case against the group and planning a paramilitary type assault on the compound. In that atmosphere, I believe, it became easy to lose sight of the human dynamics of the group involved, to plan as if the group were indeed a military target."

For Dick DeGuerin, Koresh's attorney, the Waco tragedy was the result of incredible bungling, if not outright chicanery, on the part of the ATF and the FBI -- aided and abetted, however unwittingly, by Janet Reno, an attorney general who was "new on the job and out of her depth." A year after the tragedy, DeGuerin, a trial attorney of 28 years who was seasoned enough not to take his trial successes and failures personally, was still furious over his last meeting prior to the fire with FBI agent Jeffrey Jamar, the agent in charge of the 51 day siege, a meeting at which he had assured the agent that in his best considered judgment the Davidians would voluntarily leave the compound in about two weeks. DeGurein says Jamar assured him that time was not a factor. "None of this had to happen," says DeGuerin.

In the face of this unprecedented attack on American citizens by agents of their own government, a deadly assault that sparked the militia movement as well as the bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, an unprecedented silence befell the press. "No one stepped forward to be the Davidians' friend," writes Richard Shweder, author of "Thinking Through Cultures," in the New York Times. "The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms spent months planning and rehearsing the largest 'law enforcement' operation of its 200-year history. This turned out to be a major military operation, worthy of a police state, carried out against the domestic residence of an unpopular and readily stigmatized religious community. The ACLU does not like guns, and it's very busy, so it didn't get involved. The religious leaders of our country do not like 'cults,' and the women's movement does not like patriarchal living arrangements, so they didn't much care. And no one wanted to seem sympathetic to 'child abuse' or unsympathetic to the FBI."

"Where Is The Press?" wrote one of the Davidian residents on a sheet hung out the window of the women's quarters of the Waco compound. The press, also a captive of the government as well as its own biases, was kept at bay two miles down the road. The press, coming too late with too little to this story, is only now beginning to wake up. The Dallas Morning News and WorldNetDaily are reporting, contrary to recent statements by Janet Reno and the Clinton administration, according to classified documents obtained through The Freedom of Information Act as well as WND's sources within the Special Forces, that not only did Reno seek the involvement of the Army's Commando Unit, Delta Force, but she was warned at a meeting she attended with Webster Hubbell and others that the use of CS tear gas could cause "some people to panic. Mothers may run off and leave infants."

WorldNetDaily's source states that he believes, writes Betsy Gibson, that Delta Force was reluctant to get involved at WACO: "I believe the Delta Force colonel didn't want to be directly involved in it, and did not want to be dragged into it. Delta Force operators and Task Force 160 operators continually cautioned the FBI against attempting an 'open air assault' on the target, and stated emphatically that they did not want to be involved in firing on or assaulting American civilians." These official and unofficial comments went ignored, says WND, and, in fact, one Special Operations officer was threatened with court-martial if he continued to protest, the source said. At another point in the document, Delta Force personnel explain to Reno that Special Forces encounters are almost always militaristic and involve outright enemies who are often heavily armed. Delta Force explains that in its standard modus operandi it is "the principles of surprise, speed and violence of action" that are "essential to any operation," along with the strategy that "momentum should be maintained and ground gained should not be relinquished." A WND military source says "violence of action" usually refers to killing the "hostiles."

A former Special Forces commando states that he recently spoke with a Delta Force commando who was present at the final tear-gas assault on the Branch Davidian compound. Keith Idema, a member of Special Forces and Special Operations units from 1975 to 1992, helped train hostage rescue team personnel for both Delta Force and the FBI. He maintains that the video footage from Waco showing a bright light flashing inside the building moments before the fire broke out have been misidentified as a fire that was started by Branch Davidian leader David Koresh, when, in fact, to the trained eye of a Special Forces explosive expert, it is unmistakably a flash caused by a "concussion grenade" that had been lobbed inside the compound. A concussion grenade employs a brilliant flash and loud bang to render an enemy in its vicinity blind, deaf and immobile for a brief period during which commandos can overpower them. Such grenades should be used only for military purposes and are wholly inappropriate, if not illegal, for use in a situation involving women and children -- and in any situation where potentially inflammable tear gas is still hanging in the air, the former Special Forces operative told WorldNetDaily.

Anyone who has seen the movie "Waco: The Rules Of Engagement," an Academy Award nominated film about Waco, will remember scenes of a 51 day standoff against a group comprised mostly of women and children, helicopters firing at the compound and soldiers machine-gunning the building as it burned. Watching "Rules of Engagement" compels one to wonder exactly who are the paranoids with the messiah complex -- David Koresh or administration officials and government agents. Now, there is a new home video by the same producers, "Waco, A New Revelation," obtainable from MGA Films Inc. at 1-800-277-9802.

-- Liberty (liberty@theready.now), August 31, 1999

Answers

This book, Why Waco, is considered to be one of the definitive reviews of this entire situation. Taking no sides, the authors present a balanced collection of information that anyone with a serious desire to understand this tragedy should read.

(Snip/review)

The 1993 government assault on the Branch Davidian compound near Waco, Texas, resulted in the deaths of four federal agents and eighty Branch Davidians, including seventeen children. Whether these tragic deaths could have been avoided is still debatable, but what seems clear is that the events in Texas have broad implications for religious freedom in America. James Tabor and Eugene Gallagher's bold examination of the Waco story offers the first balanced account of the siege. They try to understand what really happened in Waco: What brought the Branch Davidians to Mount Carmel? Why did the government attack? How did the media affect events? The authors address the accusations of illegal weapons possession, strange sexual practices, and child abuse that were made against David Koresh and his followers. Without attempting to excuse such actions, they point out that the public has not heard the complete story and that many media reports were distorted. The authors have carefully studied the Davidian movement, analyzing the theology and biblical interpretation that were so central to the group's functioning. They also consider how two decades of intense activity against so-called cults have influenced public perceptions of unorthodox religions. In exploring our fear of unconventional religious groups and how such fear curtails our ability to tolerate religious differences, Why Waco? is an unsettling wake-up call. Using the events at Mount Carmel as a cautionary tale, the authors challenge all Americans, including government officials and media representatives, to closely examine our national commitment to religious freedom. James D. Tabor is Associate Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte and the coauthor of A Noble Death: Suicide and Martyrdom in Antiquity (1992). Eugene V. Gallagher is Professor of Religious Studies at Connecticut College and the author of Expectation and Experience: Explaining Religious Conversion (1990). | Published: APRIL 1997 | 260 6.125x9.25 | Subject: RELIGION | Rights: W | ISBN (cloth): 0-520-20186-8 | ISBN (paper): 0-520-20899-4

-- You (should@read.this), August 31, 1999.

Why exempt Clinton charge him with murder too.

-- Goldbug (Goldbug@mint.com), August 31, 1999.

Wow, keep it coming, Liberty, the truth will set us free.

And it will be interesting to see if any "new faces" show up on this thread to try to "de-bunk" this. (Oh my gosh, I'm beginning to sound like Ray!)

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), August 31, 1999.

The book recommended by "Youshouldreadthis" is pure thinktank-spawned spin. Once again, we have Fed apologists feigning objectivity while holding Koresh's underwear up for inspection. To those who ask about the children burned, they say, "yes, but-"

NO MORE "YES, BUT-"! They killed 84 men women and children and if we don't but their lying murderous asses in jail, they are going to go for all of us, sooner or later. With talk of Y2k martial law, I say it looks like sooner, and we all have a right and a duty to prepare for that. If they won't take responsibility REAL responsiblity for their criminal acts, what choice do we have?

Liberty

-- Liberty (liberty@theready.now), August 31, 1999.

OK, I am pissed! I swore to forever lurk, and never post, but I am pissed. My wife and I both come from families who have consistently fought for this Republic, from the War of Independence, War of 1812, War of Northern Aggression, Spanish American War to WWI,WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Cold War, and Gulf War (me). We both are classical liberals who believe what you do is your business, but harm no one. We believe in community cooperation, we are not racists,bigots, anti-semites, fag bashers, etc. Live andd let live.

That said, We tonight declare ourselves against this tyranny. To believe that after 6 years, Reno, Clinton, FBI, can continue to rationalize the ATF and FBI actions is beyond me. We will never give up our guns, gold, home because they say we must. We will fight by god or we will disgrace our legacy given to us by our relatives, friends, and our forefathers. Why are christian, gun owners, and conservatives in general always identified as the enemy of the state??

I was a Marine. I will fight. Enemies both foreign and DOMESTIC.

Semper Fidelis, Richard, USMC

-- Richard,USM (rkb65@hotmail.com), August 31, 1999.

Richard,

First, thank you for being a marine. I literally thank God for you and your forebears.

Second, I believe the answer to your question, "Why are christians, gun owners, and conservatives in general always identified as the enemy of the state??" can be found in a post by "doktorbob" on the FBI thread, above. He wrote:

... I would recommend reading Albert Speer's Inside the Third Reich for some interesting parallels to the current stage of American history. Hitler was "elected " in 1932 with a minority of the vote. It took him about seven years to staff the German bureaucracy with loyalists and NAZIS: police, military, civil servants etc. He requred a group to blame all problems on: Jews against whom he directed constant abuse and propaganda. In order to consolidate his power, he staged bombings and other "terrorist" incidents including murders,vandalism, riots, and finally the Reichtag fire. He assumed final total power by running over a weak and disorganized opposition in the Reichtag which could not muster the courage to oppose him because he held files on their own dirt. He also commanded an extra-legal cadre of enforcers to terrorize and murder opponents. Sounding familiar yet? When a leader seeks to assume complete control, he MUST have a group to demonize. Telling outrageous lies is no problem, in fact it's much easier than telling the truth. Finally, economic desperation must reign i.e. hyper-inflation and depression in Germany circa 1930s. And it's coming on us here like a runnaway train.

Enter Y2k, and you understand why Bill Clinton has adopted fix on failure. He is planning on a "third term " alright, one of unlimited duration. Y2k IS more than a mere computer glitch. It's the ON switch for a Frankenstein's monster of political oppression. Now go read The Secret Life of Bill Clinton and educate yourself. '

I would also recommend reading about Clinton's relationship with Communist China on the "freerepublic.com" website. He's been in their pay, via the Riady family (determined by the FBI to be Communist agents) since he was an Arkansas Attorney General.

God bless you.

Liberty

-- Liberty (liberty@theready.com), August 31, 1999.

note: at the end there, "I would recommend..." onward is not doktorbob but me talking.

Liberty

-- Liberty (liberty@theready.now), August 31, 1999.

Hello Liberty..

Ive been reading your posts for the last few days on the Waco situation. For the most part I agree with your stated views but find your rigid attitudes to be somewhat disconcerting. I had recommended the book Why Waco as a valid source of factual data on the events surrounding this tragedy (IMHO). The co-author of this book, James Tabor, is also featured in the movie that you are so very fond of, Waco, Rules of Engagement. If his book is a spin on the Waco situation then it stands to reason that the movie is also a spin. You damage your credibility when you refuse to look at all aspects. It is good to have a passionate belief but be careful not to juggle the facts to always favor your position. BTW, I have seen this movie many, many times and there is no doubt in my mind that a very heavy spin took place in creating this film. Please, Im not saying I dont trust the story, just that it is heavily slanted in one direction. We will probably never know all of the facts but that does not excuse us for making them up as we go along.

-- You (should@read.this), September 01, 1999.

Youshouldreadthis,

So, in other words, you think that when we're discussing evidence that the ATF/FBI/DeltaForce set a house full of children on fire, shot at people trying to escape, then destroyed the evidence of their crime, it's important to investigate the religious beliefs of the parents of the children who were murdered. Thanks, I think I see where you're coming from now. By all means, let's not let get bogged down in minor details like culpability for child-murder, when we have large, important sociological issues to discuss.

Did you see the FLIR footage or not? Do you have refutation of the interpretation of that footage (by the camera's patent-holder) or not?

Liberty

-- Liberty (liberty@theready.now), September 01, 1999.

Liberty.

Im sure that nothing I have said would lead to your assumptions regarding the religious beliefs of the Branch Davidians. You keep ranting and raving about the murders committed by the government forces as if YOU are to be taken as the judge and jury.passing sentence on those whom YOU declare to be guilty. As disgusted as I am over the actions of those involved, YOU are equally hard to stomach at times. Who the hell are you to pass all of this judgement on those that may or may not be deserving of your venomous words? Please, tell us why YOU should be taken seriously as a messenger of freedom and truth without question. Have you offered your professional insight to those in a position to act? I think not. You would rather postulate here on this forum where your motivations and credibility will not come under close scrutiny. Ive already gone on record that I agree with most of your views but you cant stand anything less then an extremist position. Climb down from your high horse before you slip and hurt yourself.

-- You (should@read.this), September 01, 1999.

Youshouldreadthis,

You know, you can rent the video for about 2 bucks, most places. It was nominated for an Academy Award for "best documentary." Did I mention it's called "Waco: The Rules of Engagement?"

It shows children being burned and gassed to death and shot. I really don't think that's my opinion. The evidence displayed comes from the Texas Rangers. It's interpreted by experts; in the case of the infrared camera, the footage is interpreted by the patent-holder for that camera. Children. Shot. Burned. Gassed. Deliberately. What's not clear? What's not to understand? The latest TIME magazine attributes Waco to "bureacratic sloppiness." The deliberate (watch the film) burning and gassing and shooting of children, called mere "sloppiness" by the lying media. So I'm trying to get people to look at the truth. The media won't; most reporters have chosen to be an accessory to murder.

I call a lie, a lie. I call murder, murder. This isn't a mere "topic for discussion" for me. It's a legal, moral, historical crisis of overwhelming importance. I am not important, not at all. But the Republic is. The children are. The people are. I don't want us all to become slaves to a police state. If that puts me on a "high horse," well, I don't feel so special. A horse is not much against tanks and helicopters, and a bought-out global media...

Liberty

-- Liberty (liberty@theready.now), September 01, 1999.

Liberty..

Im not about opposing your views across the board. If you would read my posts more carefully, you will note that I have seen the movie many, many times. I dont need to rent a copy, I own a copy. What Im saying is that this is a movie, a collection of filmed events collated and edited to transmit a message. Is it the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I dont know for sure and neither do you. I have spent a fair amount of time on the Waco incident and I am still somewhat uncertain as to all of the detailed actions by all concerned. I spent many years in the military and have more than a working knowledge of infrared imaging. If this movie is the definitive source of the ultimate truth, than all of those deemed to be guilty should be brought to justice. I, like you and many others, think there is a bigger evil involved here and this might be the vehicle for change. At the risk of being dumped on I would like to ask why the Davidians did not leave the compound after the initial confrontation? There was a cease-fire and the opportunity for some kind of peaceful resolution was available. Have you ever been in a firefight? You can be assured that no one is standing around reading procedural manuals or for that matter, rules of engagement. The only mistake one makes during warfare is getting hit. If in fact the government forces were out to exterminate everyone inside the compound, then no judgement can be too harsh. We can only hope that the truth will prevail, for their sake and for ours.

-- You (should@read.this), September 01, 1999.

Youshouldreadthis,

I understand what you're saying. Here's where I think you're getting it wrong: There never should have been a firefight. The BATF brought that fight to the Davidians, went OUT OF THEIR WAY TO AVOID A PREMPTIVE, NONVIOLENT SOLUTION, for publicity purposes. They called the t.v. crews in advance, because "something big" was about to happen. Koresh tried to contact them and was rebuffed! Koresh went to town on a weekly basis, he could have been questioned at any time. He had a good relationship with the local sheriff, who could have easily questioned Koresh, detained him, and/or served the warrant - by knocking on the door, not firing bullets through it. If the BATF didn't fire first, WHY DID THEY DESTROY THE EVIDENCE? There have been so many lies; just the lies that they've admitted to are enough to show where we ought to be focusing our suspicions. Add to this the FLIR footage. If the inventor of the camera says the fire was set and machine guns were fired on the buring occupants, that's clear enough for me. That's precisely what he invented the camera to detect - he should know! And this answers your question, too: the reason the Davidians were reluctant to leave the safety of their compound was because they were understandably afraid of the agents and soldiers who were threatening them, firing on them, and dropping their pants to taunt them - in front of their women and children. Later, they used psyops - audio of dentist's drills and rabbits being slaughtered, to keep them from sleeping. This is the government using MACHINERY OF WAR, and the mentality of war, against people who would have responded peacefully if dealt with peacefully. After the Davidians intitially defended themselves -against agents who fired first- the hostility of the feds didn't let up. The Davidians said again and again to the mild mannered negotiators (a mile away) that their talk didn't match up with the brutal and malicious behavior of the field agents. THAT'S why they didn't come out. They said shots were being fired at them, and that they were afraid of being burned out - and that's exactly what happened to them. This was NOT a "cult," and this was NOT a "cult suicide." If it was, the BATF would not have destroyed the evidence.

You know, I didn't want to believe it either. I didn't want this to be true. But there's a point when the best way to uphold the honor and integrity of the military, and the nation, is to mercilessly cut out the rot. There were probably a few field agents there, hopefully more than a few, who were just doing the best they could, and behaving honorably. But the leadership, in Washington and in the field, was and IS rotten. And it needs to be cut out. The longer we ignore it, the further it spreads, until every warrant served is announced with a volley of military gunfire, and execution pre-empts trial as a matter of course. What honor will there be in military service then?

Liberty

-- Liberty (liberty@theready.now), September 02, 1999.