Flag Burning....

[blinc]

Sitting here watching a tv show "The West Wing". One of the storylines involved the issue of flag burning. I was wondering what views people here on the forum had regarding this issue? Do you feel that the freedom of expressing our sentiments should include the freedom of burning the flag?
I'm really curious about the different views people have and realize this is a rather touchy subject... but I'm sure we can discuss it without becoming disrespectful of another's views. :)

[jamesglewisf]

This sure is an interesting topic. I'm not sure if you are really trampling upon someone's freedom of speech by prohibiting flag burning. I'm also not sure whether flag burning was even considered by the writers of the constitution as protected speech. I have a feeling that there were probably a good number of our founding fathers who would have or did burn flags out of protest. They just weren't burning the American flag, if there even was one at the time.

All of that said, I would never do it. I will teach my child why I think it is inappropriate. I think it dishonors all off the people who have served in our military. I think it dishonors our public servants (even politicians) who work for less pay, more hours, and under much scrutiny.

[TWTCommish]

I think that, despite "freedom", it should be against the law. What on Earth is the point? If you hate America so much, leave the country. They'll let you burn it somewhere else. It's hypocritical and usually a stupid rebellious action - lashing out at everything else when you're the problem!

I won't get upset no matter what the law is, but would readily support any law banning it.

[blinc]

I don't know that they are necessarily burning the flag because they hate the country... maybe more because they are frustrated with some aspect of government?

If everyone who didn't like things the way they were, left the country... we'd have no one left in the US!! *grin* A voice, no matter how much we may disagree with the message, does deserve a chance to be heard. There are instances where things go too far though, in my own sense of right and wrong... but how do we decide exactly what is too much? Where is the line drawn? Who's going to make that decision? I just wish the people who do burn the flag in an attempt to display their frustration, would take into consideration that the action itself is emotionally harmful to many people... like wounded veterans and the families of those who never came back alive.

[blinc]

ok now, where's Military Mom when you need someone to kick-start a topic like this one? {toothy}

[jamesglewisf]

Originally posted by blinc
ok now, where's Military Mom when you need someone to kick-start a topic like this one? {toothy} Yeah, I'm missing ole MM. Military Mom, where are you?

[Military Mom]

HERE I AM!!!!!!!!! {devil}

First of all, the only REASON why any of those little whiny cowards are able to burn the flag is because of the countless men and women before their ungrateful *ss-er....BUTTS were even born died for their freedom.

It takes absolutely zero courage, valor, or integrity to burn an American Flag, thereby disrespcting the very soil on which one stands, disrepecting the very soil that grew the food to enable the pathetic wastes of oxygen to grow up to be healthy little flag burners. Nope, it just takes aomeone who does not think carefully about what he or she says or does, someone who, like a three year old says and does things for shock value alone.

The way I see it - the Flag is a peice of cloth, take it or leave it. You can burn every single flag you get your hands on, but you will never tear down what this country stands for - freedom, life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness.

I think of a story I heard about a POW (prisoner of war, for you flag burners who wouldn't have a clue about what THAT means) who during the course of his captivity gathered bits and peices of materials; fabrics, scraps, whatever he could get his hands on. His fellow prisoners aided him in this as well, gathering and hoarding what they could. After much time and effort, they painstakingly produced a tattered, mishapen American flag. It wasn't perfect, but it was recognizable. As with all things, their captors found and destroyed the flag. The POW was beaten severely, from what I understand within an inch of his life. He was tortured. As soon as he was able he began construcing another flag, which was confiscated, destroyed and he was again beaten. I think he finally managed to make one and hold onto it and he was either released or escaped with it.

I don't know about you, but I don't think I would want to face that man if I burned flags 'to express myself.'

It is the action of a coward. I feel the penalty should be immediate deportation to a deserted island. Let them see if they have what it takes to found and form their own nation, as did their forefathers.

Better yet, deport them to Antarctica in bikini bathing suits.

Just a few thoughts on the subject. :)

mm

[blinc]

Hey, there she is! Welcome back Military Mom! We've missed your zingers the last week. Zap! Bam! Pow! Military Mom is back and posting!! {toothy}

[jamesglewisf]

HOORAY!!!!!!

We sure missed you MM.

[Karenluvs6]

I found this website by accident, a little while ago, looking for some information.
It is totally unbelievable to me!!
If you are seriously offended by the action of flag desecration or destruction, don't go to this site!!!!
Deface, Soil & Burn the flag Online (http://www.efn.org/~bsharvy/burn.html)
This is not a joke site....it is very real!

I have never seen anything more disrespectful in my life!

[Karenluvs6]

Does the First Amendment give us the right to desecrate the American flag? Or is the flag a sacred symbol of our nation, deserving protection by law? Tough call? "The Solution" for those who want to light Old Glory on fire, stomp all over it, or spit on it to make some sort of "statement," I say let them do it. But under one condition: they MUST get permission from three sponsors.

First, you need permission of a war veteran. Perhaps a Marine who fought at Iwo Jima? The American flag was raised over Mount Surabachi upon the bodies of thousands of dead buddies. Each night spent on Iwo Jima meant half of everyone you knew would be dead tomorrow, a coin flip away from a bloody end upon a patch of sand your mother couldn't find on a map. Or maybe ask a Vietnam vet who spent years tortured in a small, filthy cell unfit for a dog. Or a Korean War soldier who helped rescue half a nation from Communism, or a Desert Storm warrior who repulsed a bloody dictator from raping and pillaging an innocent country. That flag represented your mother and father, your sister and brother, your friends, neighbors, and everyone at home. I wonder what they would say if someone asked them permission to burn the American flag?

Second, you need a signature from an immigrant. Their brothers and sisters may still languish in their native land, often under tyranny, poverty and misery. Or maybe they died on the way here, never to touch our shores. Some have seen friends and family get tortured and murdered by their own government for daring to do things we take for granted every day. For those who risked everything simply for the chance to become an American, what kind of feelings do they have for the flag when they Pledge Allegiance the first time? Go to a naturalization ceremony and see for yourself, the tears of pride, the thanks, the love and respect of this nation, as they finally embrace the American flag as their own. Ask one of them if it would be OK to burn the flag or spit on it.

Third, you should get the signature of a mother. Not just any mother. You need a mother of someone who gave their life for America. It doesn't even have to be from a war. It could be a cop. Or a fireman. Maybe a Secret Service or NSA agent. Then again, it could be a common foot soldier as well. When that son or daughter is laid to rest, their family is given one gift by the American people; an American flag. Go on. I dare you. Ask that mother if you can spit on her flag. Away from family, away from the precious shores of home, in the face of overwhelming odds and often in the face of death, the American flag inspires those who believe in the American dream, the American promise, the American vision...

Americans who don't appreciate the flag don't appreciate this nation. And those who appreciate this nation appreciate the American flag. So if you want to desecrate the American flag, before you spit on it or before you burn it, I have a simple request. Just ask permission. Not from the Constitution. Not from some obscure law. Not from the politicians or the pundits. Instead, ask those who have defended our nation so that we may be free today. Ask those who struggled to reach our shores so that they may join us in the American dream. And ask those who clutch a flag in place of their sacrificed sons and daughters, given to this nation so that others may be free. For we cannot ask permission from those who died wishing they could, just once or once again... see, touch or kiss the flag that stands for our nation: The United States of America, the greatest nation on earth.

Go ahead. Ask. I dare you!

[unseen1]

{flame}{flame}{flame}{flame}{flame}{flame}{flame}{flame}{flame}{flame}{flame}{flame}{flame}{flame}{f lame}{flame}

Hi,
This is a sore subject for me. I do not in any remote way feel that it is anyone's right to burn the American flag. It is a slap in the face to all those who gave their lives for this country and for what it stands for. I agree with much of what has been said already has been said. I have served this country for 13 years and I have seen combat. During the Gulf War prior to my deployment I watched those ppl on the news burning the flag, my wife at the time had to hide my keys from me so I would not go downtown and let them know how i felt about what they were doing. So pleassssseeeeee ask my permission, just have a good pair of running shoes on when you do.

K, I feel better now GGRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

Jason

P.S. these flames aren't big enough for this subject :) LOL

[blinc]

You know I've seen the same thing. What I don't understand and what I've never seen made clear, is exactly WHY they are doing it? It's like the news stories focus on the fact that they're burning the flag... but with no real input as to what it is they are so upset about, that they would feel it necessary to burn the flag to get their point across. Any stories you've heard?

Oooh, Unseen1 that row of flames works pretty darn good to express that view of yours! Wow.

[Beezwax]

you all have some pretty strong opinions on this....it is pretty disgusting to me too...but how do you all feel about the confederate flag having to be removed from the top of that building?
it was all on the news a little while back.
that is a sort of deprivation of freedom too right?
I think it should have been left where it was.

[TWTCommish]

I think it ought to be left there as well - it has its bad meanings, but good ones as well - it's not as if it's the flag of the Ku Klux Klan or anything...

[blinc]

Beezwax, that's such an interesting thought you've brought up. I'll give you my views on it.

I was born and rasied in Michigan. Pretty much all my life up there, I was under the impression that the only reason people from the south flew the confederate flag, was as an act of hostility towards black people. I honestly didn't think there was another reason.

Since I've moved down here to N. Carolina, I've had the opportunity to ask quite a few people why they do fly the Confederate flag? Much to my surprise and adding a good bit to my education, most of them had a common answer. For most of them, it didn't have anything to do with race discrimination or hatred for the North. (which was the 2nd misconception I was operating under). Most of these people had relatives that died during that war. It is nothing more to them then showing respect for their ancesters who fought for a cause that they believed in. Doesn't mean the cause was right... most of them won't argue that point. But they seem to feel that having people tell them it's wrong to fly the flag, it's like telling them to disrespect their family.

The people down here have a lot more respect and ceremony for their ancestors and their elderly, then do the people from the North. I know that's a generalization... but you'd have to live down here to know what I mean. There's just more a sense of family I think. Pride in heritage I'd guess you'd call it.

[Karenluvs6]

wow...that's some stuff that I didn't know.
that's really interesting Blinc.
Beezwax is actually from NC....Charlotte in fact.
also lived in Raliegh and Lowell.

[Military Mom]

Quite a few years ago, I had a "rebel" flag hanging in my bedroom. No, I am not a racist. I had it there for the dumbest reason in the world - I just liked the way it looked! Not becasue I advocated slavery or discrimination or the rape of civil rights.

One night, one of my best girlfriends came over to spend the night (girls night in type thing). She saw the flag and would not sleep in my room until I took that flag down. I asked her what the deal was. She told me that she personally felt that it stands for the advocacy of slavery and is basically a statement of racial hatred. She said "I can't believe that you have this hanging in your room!" I took it down right away, shocked and a little chagrined and ashamed at having hurt my friend. I apologized and took the darned thing down. I tried explaining to her why I had it there. She was still a bit mad, but we are still friends today, thankfully....

Anyway, I think the Rebel flag symbolizes different things to different people. It needs to be made clear to everyone that it doesn't stand for intolerance or bigotry, but for the ancestors who lost their lives in the Civil War.

[TWTCommish]

There was no right and wrong there between you and your friend.

It's wrong for her to get all upset - she should, however, request you remove it respectfully - thus recognizing that is it not a big red "KKK", but still offensive to SOME.

[Military Mom]

There is nothing you or I could say to my friend that would make her see things differently, she sees it as a symbol of White Supremacy. Even though she knows that I am not that way and I had it hanging - she still wouldn't belive it can stand for more than slavery advocacy. So, as you said, respectfully I removed it, and have thought twice about displaying it in any way since. I also wonder about anyone who drives around in a beat up pick up truck with a rebel flag license plate ... It can mean that to white people too.

Sadly enough.

mm

[Zephyrus]

OK, I realise this is a really sensitive issue, but I've got to ask a question, and raise a few issues.

Or maybe ask a Vietnam vet who spent years tortured in a small, filthy cell unfit for a dog. Or a Korean War soldier who helped rescue half a nation from Communism, or a Desert Storm warrior who repulsed a bloody dictator from raping and pillaging an innocent country.


Since you mention Desert Storm, I can understand the reason that soldiers fought in it. But, ten years on, is it acceptable for half a million Iraqi children to have died, and hundreds of thousands more starving and dying because of sanctions? I don't see them raping and pillaging an innocent country, yet they are the only ones who suffer. Sadam is still in power, if not stronger than ever...so what effect does that have??

What about the Vietnam veteran? Although I wasn't alive when the war was on, I have studied it in history class, and of course I've seen the countless movies about it. I realise the US was fighting a war against communism and fighting for the values it holds dear (i.e. freedom, liberty etc.), but think about it from the Vietnamese people's point of view...they had US soldiers in their country from accross thousands of miles of ocean, far from their homeland, and of course it was regarded as an invasion/occupation. They fought for their freedom from an aggressor (as viewed by them). The Vietnam war was a tragedy, more than 58,000 US soldiers were killed, the average age being 23 years. But I won't even mention the 3.8 million Vietnamese who died in the same conflict...

The US has paid the price for many of the conflicts with the lives of their men, and it's a heavy price to pay. Perhaps the people who burn the flags might be Americans who feel the same way or even immigrants with wounds from the past, but what I am trying to show is that the mirror always has two faces.

[nb]

I personally would never burn an American flag.......but it doesn't bother me that someone else might feel compelled to do so. He probably wouldn't do it if he didn't realize what the reaction from some would be.

As far as the Confederate flag goes, I, too, thought it was a pretty neat looking flag. I, also, moved to North Carolina from the North. Some of the people here may genuinely believe that it only represents their "heritage", but I haven't found one yet. They also argue that the Civil War was all about "states rights", but it wasn't. If the flag is objectionable to a large number of the citizens, why not be discrete when flying it? i.e. fly it privately, not over government buildings that represent ALL the people, not just the ones who can't get over the fact that the South lost?

Would anyone object to the flying of the British Union Jack over a Northern state's Capitol Building? It only represents "heritage", after all.

[Nudnik]

I think that burning the flag is disrespectful (mildly put), cowardly, is in the extremely bad taste, etc. Besides, I personally do not like symbolism – I find it childish and groundless. I guess flag burning can be construed as ‘free speech’. Some free speech is prohibited. Some, extremely offensive, is restricted. But I have at least two problems with flag burning:
1. Nothing should be prohibited in a free society. Otherwise, it’s not free anymore. And whenever you start to prohibit anything, you never know where to stop.
2. If flag burning is considered illegal, what about using flag as a doormat or a rag? Or wearing it on you crotch area, as panties, where it may get soiled? Or… tomorrow some nut may invent a novel way to humiliate our national pride. Is blowing one’s nose into the flag is OK?
And MMom is right: countless men and women died for desacretors' freedom.
I have never seen anything more disrespectful in my life
And you are right, Karen. But we cannot forbid such places: ironically, it makes us even stronger and greater. As MMom, I’d preferred to see these people in Antarctica in bathing suits, but what if the bathing suits are made of the flag (it’s only fabric, after all) and gets soiled ?
I’d prefer the people who disagree with the majority state their objections in a more acceptable and understandable ways, but I understand that not everyone is as smart as I am and does not understand that other people feelings can be offended.
I think we could all loose more by prohibiting something than by allowing it and dealing with the consequences.

I understand that my point of view may be objectionable to some peopole, but I do not think that I will be prohibited from posting here.

[jamesglewisf]

It certainly won't be prohibited from being posted here. That was a very thoughtful post.

[keithster]

nb,

We meet again. :) LOL

If the Civil War wasn't about states' rights, what was it about?

I know the teachers and history books in school convinced me that it was about slavery, but as I understand it, Lincolns abolition of slavery came quite late in the war. Everything I've read since college suggests that it was a war about states' rights.

What did I miss?

[nb]

It's simple, Keithster, you believe the racist "cover-up".

BTW - what exactly don't you understand about the Branch Davidian's self inflicted roaring inferno?

[blinc]

nb I don't know that because Keithster or any of us has a point of view that's different, that it means he or we have swallowed some form of "cover-up". There are a lot of issues surrounding the Civil War that are still being debated... I've read articles that suggest it was to do with the abolition of slavery, I've also read that articles that suggest nothing at all similar... I guess until we find a way to go back in time we perhaps may never know what the real motivation was. Perhaps you believe there is no other reason than the slavery issue... that's fine too, but not everyone is convinced of that. If people choose to not believe whatever evidence there is that has convinced you of a certain viewpoint, it does not mean that they have been brainwashed simply because they disagree. Perhaps, some of us are just more skeptical then you. ;)

The Branch Davidians. I've watched multiple interviews with former members of that group. Watched the video clips of the siege tanks that were used and what happend... or what we were allowed to see of what happend. I'm not at all convinced that the Branch Davidians set the fire. I'm not thoroughly convinced that the tanks did either. I did see one clip that showed a tank "emit" (for lack of a better word) two flashes and moments later the inferno started. One thing I do know... it was a horrendous way for those people to die.

[jamesglewisf]

I saw Alec's and Roadrunner's posts here about the branch davidians and thought they both posted in the wrong thread.

Doh.

I then deleted their posts and was going to post them in the Government Secrets thread. Then I realized that they were in the right place. Somehow this thead got on the topic of the Davidians.

My bad. Here are there posts:


------------------------------
Alec said:

I think the whole thing was pretty senseless and a real tragedy.

At any point the Davidians could have walked out of the compound with their hands up in the air and surrendered to the authorities. Regardless of which side you believe was correct, they could have ended it differently. They also could have started it differently--without initiating or returning gunfire (whichever happened) when the warrants were being served.

It could be that some of them were being held hostage by Koresh, but then that's always a possibility when you move into a compound run by a religious leader who names the group after himself and stockpiles weapons. That has cult written all over it. Being a member of a cult or religious group that lives in a compound is fine, but I just wouldn't be surprised when things turn out differently than expected.

---------
Then RoadRunner Said:


I'm not big into conspiracy theories and coverup theories. I know that coverups occur, but my first assumption is never that there was a coverup. There has to be some pretty solid evidence to prove it.

I am a Republican. I think it is significant that Reno named a former Republican senator from Missouri, John Danforth, as an outside independent investigator. If Danforth had the opportunity to find dirt on the Democrat Reno, I'm sure he would have. Instead his reports stated: Did FBI agents fire guns at the Davidians? (Conclusion: No)
Did the FBI start the fire? (Conclusion: No)
Did the military's involvement in the standoff violate federal law? (Conclusion: No)
Was there a cover-up? (Conclusion: No) Is it possible that he was wrong? Sure. But the seige happened in 1993. I would bet that something would have come out by now to contradict it.
-------------

[jamesglewisf]

That is one of the funniest moderator errors I have ever made. I think next time I'll just leave posts that I think are in the wrong thread in the wrong thread. Or is it the right thread? I'm confusing myself now.
{homer}

[RoadRunner]

Somebody call the funny farm. Old man Lewis has lost his marbles.

LOL! That was funny. I think that move deserves two homers:

{homer}{homer}

[keithster]

I'm not so certain about a racist coverup. Certainly, I'm not a racist in my thinking, and I do think about these such issues carefully. If you believe I'm racist, you should see the kids I adopted and some of my best friends. :)

One of my best friends got his initial degree in history with a strong emphasis on the Civil War. He has a great deal of passion for the subject and continues to study it in detail.

So, when we discuss it and he tells me that the war was more about states' rights than about slavery, and that Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was put off as long as possible, I believe him. (He's pretty much apolitical and definitely not racist.)

I'm sure there are sources that disagree, and I'd enjoy hearing those facts.

As far as the Branch Davidians go, I have no doubt that they were whacked in their religion. They were out there.

It's easy to look at people who are different and think that they got what they deserved and brought it upon themselves (which is very different than recognizing the consequences of their actions). I have to confess that this was my initial reaction. But that's not what this country is about. Those people had the right to practice their religion as they wished. And if it's okay to pick on them, who's next?

There are also a lot of unanswered questions about the whole affair. Perhaps some of you good people here can enlighten me. Why did the ATF choose to "raid" rather than attempting a more peaceful approach? Have the charges of child abuse in the "compound" been proven? Why not let the people run out of food instead of taking the risk of injury to children? After all, their seems to be a high risk of tear gas in buildings setting off fires. It seems to me that the govt also made a lot of mistakes.

nb, I hold no animosity toward you. I simply desire an honest and open discussion of topics in which the facts come to light and differences of opinion are respected. I apologize if my question appeared hostile or otherwise negative. It wasn't meant that way at all. This is a new forum and it deserves a clean start. :)

[Alec]

I posted:It could be that some of them were being held hostage by Koresh, but then that's always a possibility when you move into a compound run by a religious leader who names the group after himself and stockpiles weapons. That has cult written all over it. Being a member of a cult or religious group that lives in a compound is fine, but I just wouldn't be surprised when things turn out differently than expected. What I meant by things turning out differently than expected was Koresh not allowing the members to leave, if they were indeed being held hostage. If they weren't being held hostage by Koresh, then they should have obeyed the law by surrendering to the authorities long before the fire.

I definitely don't believe you change your tactics because someone has different religious beliefs. I don't see how we can draw the conclusion that they were treated differently because they were a cult. If anything, they were treated differently because they were stockpiling weapons and considered dangerous.

[Alec]

And BTW, jamesglewisf. That was pretty funny (deleting the posts).

[keithster]

Were they stockpiling weapons? I've read a couple of different places that Koresh had a license to sell weapons and was doing so legally.

The survivors were tried and gave probably hours of testimony in court. Has anyone read the testimony? What did they have to say about what was going on in there?

This thing got very little coverage in the news past the standoff and fire.

There's also a video someone produced that analyzes the evidence and news video of the fire. I haven't seen it and can't recall the title. Does anyone know the title?

[Alec]

http://www.cnn.com says The main charges against Koresh and his followers were that he was breaking firearms laws -- more specifically, converting guns into machine guns. The ATF said Koresh had spent $199,715 in the previous year to buy guns, gun parts and other components, enough to build a fearsome arsenal. That's where the legality issue came in.There were many guns at Mount Carmel, but Koresh's supporters and lawyers argue that most were made or bought for profit. This doesn't jive too well with Koresh's own comments:"I don't care who they are," he said in a taped conversation with a lawyer. "Nobody is going to come into my home, with my babies around, shaking guns around, without a gun back in their face. That's just the American way."I don't think that most law-abiding gun sellers would view things this way.

CNN said this about the fire:But that morning, FBI surveillance picked up troubling conversations at Mount Carmel: "I already poured it. ... It's already poured." "Don't pour it all out, we might need some later." "So we only light 'em at first if they come in with that tank, right?"

The FBI says its snipers saw a Davidian start a fire, and that an infrared camera in a plane overhead detected three fires beginning in three separate parts of the compound, almost simultaneously. Could there have still been a coverup? Possibly. Could the Davidians still have been innocent? Possibly. I just doubt it. It's hard for me to believe that all of those ATF and FBI agents are covering it up. Somebody would spill the beans eventually.

[Alec]

CNN also said that during the first week 23 Davidians left the compound. Koresh offered to send out a six year old if the FBI would let him talk to the undercover ATF agent who had been in the compound. Koresh actually used a six year old as a bargaining chip! IMO, the guy was not innocent.

I will admit that there are probably many things I don't know about the event, but I have a hard time siding with a guy who bought almost $200,000 worth of guns and converted some of them into machine guns. I have a hard time believing a guy who was a self-proclaimed Christ and said he would surrender if he could first finish his explanation of the Book of Revelations' Seven Seals. I have a hard time believing a guy who used a six year old as a bargaining chip. The CNN article even said:It is widely known that Koresh had wives as young as 14, and had sex with others even younger. He had appropriated the wives of all the Davidian men; his children, he claimed, would rule the world. Lastly, I have a hard time believing anyone who would follow this guy. I am going to believe the ATF and FBI on this one.

[nb]

Thank you, Alec, for spending the time tracking down all that information. Hopefully this will put the issue to rest now.

[Alec]

Originally posted by nb
Thank you, Alec, for spending the time tracking down all that information. Hopefully this will put the issue to rest now. You're welcome, but just because I quoted CNN, it doesn't mean everybody will agree with me. I was simply adding some support to what I had said.

[keithster]

Good information. This is stuff I hadn't seen before. Thanks. :) There are still some questions, but it's not that important.

[Nudnik]

Jim, if you do not mind my rambling: it’s easy to separate donuts: ones with cream go to the upper shelf and ones with chocolate go to the bottom shelf. It might not be so easy with posts. Do not flagellate yourself. Both were good threads, we read them. Where? It’s nice to have everything nicely pigeonholed, but sometimes a bit of mess makes your house cozier.

[nb]

I want one with cream AND chocolate! Where do they go?

[nb]

Not to beat this thing to death....but Keithster said:

"Good information. This is stuff I hadn't seen before. Thanks. There are still some questions, but
it's not that important."


***I think you are the one who said the mainstream media doesn't bring out all the facts...........that one has to look at other sources. What are your other sources and why didn't they provide you with the basic information that all us mainstream media readers have known since the beginning?

[jamesglewisf]

With Sprinkles.

[keithster]

With my hat in hand, I apologize if I've offended anyone in any way in this thread. To me, the govt case has not answered a lot of questions and, like so many stories, the major media sources haven't done a satisfactory job of reporting.

There were two documentaries done on Waco, "Waco The Rules of Engagement" and "Waco A New Revelation" which I have not seen. One was nominated for an Oscar for documentaries. Although I haven't seen them, I have heard and read several interviews with the producers, and have read and heard plenty of reviews.

Both lay out a pretty convincing case that the govt messed this one up.

There was a Frontline show on it that also comes to this conclusion. I haven't seen that one, but I have heard it discussed on radio shows.

There have been ongoing articles in several sources for a long, long time. Do a google search and you'll probably find more articles than you can read in a year. Nothing I've seen, except for Danforth's stuff, conclusively lets the govt off the hook.

Here's one list of articles: http://www.waco93.com/press.htm

Obviously, I haven't read them all as I'm not obssessed by this and I have many other interests in life, like my kids.

If I remember correctly, Reno's reason for authorizing the tear gassing was child abuse, which I don't believe has ever been proven.

I don't think that there was any conspiracy (there rarely is), but there were a lot of mistakes made by the govt.

My opinion (and it is just that, my humble opinion) is that no matter what Koresh was up to, those people died unnecessarily.

Again, I'm not trying to offend anyone with this topic or my remarks about the major media missing the boat. It's merely that I've seen too much over the years to trust Tom Brokaw and company as a final source of truth. :)

[nb]

Keithster....I don't think anyone is offended, least of all me.........but, I do tend to get a little tired of people continually rehashing the same old things. If Danforth isn't credible, who on the Right is?

You're right; those people died unnecessarily...and they died because they were bamboozled by a shyster by the name of David Koresh, not Janet Reno.

[Nudnik]

Time for donuts!

[PsalmReader's Mom]

Yes, the Confederate flag was as precious to the South as the United States flag is to us today. As for me, I certainly would never disrespect our banner. I always have some real issues going with our government, but where else in the world could you burn a flag without fear of retribution!?! What a wonderful country to live in. Thespian from Africa, come on over!

[Military Mom]

I am elated to see that someone else besides me gets all fired up about what they believe in and is not afraid to say what they mean.

{party}

mm

[blinc]

I keep getting the feeling that for some reason that because David Koresh was in the wrong that automatically the Government has no fault in what happend at all during that fire...

The day before this whole mess started, David Koresh left the compound, went into town... by himself! He was already being watched, the ATF and FBI had already staked the place out and knew his every move. Why didn't they pick him up in town, away from his members and the children at the compound?

What about the fact that the tanks punched holes in both ends of the compound, there were high winds that day... if they knew there was a possibility of the Davidians starting a fire, why on earth punch holes in a building like that when it did nothing but serve as a massive oxygen feeding tool for the fire? I don't think things were as clear cut as the FBI and ATF had no fault and the Davidians were all to blame. There could have... Should have been a different way to settle things then what I watched on tv that day.

It was horrifying to watch and I think there was fault on both sides... but yes, I do hold the government more to blame, they were supposed to be the "sane" ones.

[Grimey]

Boy, it ain't much different today. I still here conservatives trying to defend Koresh. That is insane.

If a bunch of Muslim extremists were stockpiling weapons, conservatives would send in the tanks. Because it was a goofy so-called Christian, the government was at fault. Gimme a break!