On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 11:02:09 -0700, John Smith
wrote:

On 4/26/2011 10:41 AM, raven1 wrote:
On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 09:51:32 -0700, John
wrote:

On 4/26/2011 7:06 AM, raven1 wrote:
On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 14:12:55 -0700, John
wrote:


The court hearing(s) and trials on all this are nothing short of
criminal, a sham, a joke ... I am sorry, I find any testimony given by
the victimized surviors of no value,
...

http://www.public-action.com/SkyWrit.../page/b_a.html
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/09/09/waco

I'm not sure as to your point: the second link here is to a survivor's
account blaming the FBI, but the first is an article discrediting his
account as unbelievable, and noting that his story has changed several
times.

http://www.carolmoore.net/waco/waco-speak-out.html

This is testimony of two survivors: Thibodeau, whose account your
first article has already dismissed as unreliable, and a second who
offers no insight as to how the fire started other than that he didn't
hear an order to set it.

But again, what's your point, as you've already stated you hold the
survivors' accounts of no value? Make up your mind.

Combined with what I have already stated,

Stop right there. You're using accounts that you've previously
dismissed as being of "no value" to support your position. Sorry, you
can't have it both ways. Moreover, as I pointed out, the first link
you provided dismisses the testimony from the second (and half of the
testimony from the third) as unbelievable, and the remainder of the
testimony in the third link doesn't implicate either side for starting
the fire, so it's of no aid to you.

and apparently you have
missed, with the resources and open intimidation of lethal force by
public servants, military, police, etc. only fools could oppose these
lethal forces without escaping death ...

Well, yes, if by "opposing" you mean "armed opposition", but several
of the Branch Davidians did peacefully leave the compound unharmed
during the stand-off...

You want absolutes when it is the very nature of the criminals to hide
their crimes ...

No, I just expect accusations to be supported by evidence, not
speculation.

Waco was a simple illegal home invasion perpetrated by government ...
they got their asses handed to them and had to murder the resisters in a
show of force.

"Had to"? Why?

I'd say that is pretty criminal fare done by tyrants
worldwide ... you seem to feel it is OK when American public servants do
crimes.

No, I don't. But I also don't feel it's OK to revise history.

That is all which has happened, that is all that happening ...

Regards,
JS

On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 10:55:37 -0700, John Smith
wrote:

On 4/26/2011 10:13 AM, raven1 wrote:

...
How so?

No, really, I'm interested in your "logic" here.
...

If you really must pose such imbecilic questions, you probably missed
the importance of potty training ... don't bother the adults here, go
home and ask your mother ...

Asking sideways questions ...

You are apparently unwilling or unable to answer a direct question.
That doesn't help your credibility.

On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 10:56:18 -0700, John Smith
wrote:

On 4/26/2011 10:54 AM, raven1 wrote:
On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 10:20:01 -0700, John
wrote:

On 4/26/2011 10:13 AM, raven1 wrote:
On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 09:46:20 -0700, John
wrote:

On 4/26/2011 6:58 AM, raven1 wrote:

...
Do you wonder why most people regard Conspiracy Theorists as nuts?


Really?

Yes, actually.

To tell you the truth, the motives behind any crime I have ever seen in
life is/are drugs, money, power, wealth and rock and roll ...

And you think which was the motive here?

Criminals can keep coming up with a range of bizarre "motives", I find
this humorous ... but sad.

Regards,
JS

The facts and data surrounding Waco only prepared us for the future crimes.

How so?

No, really, I'm interested in your "logic" here.

The next false flag operation may enslave us, or set of a real
revolution. It only depends if enough know what has been going on.

A single video, waco rules of engagement, pushes Waco far above a simple
conspiracy!

Regards,
JS

You are stuck in a circular argument, the evidence prove Waco a crime, a
lot of the evidence has been pointed out here, bullets, CS gas,
tanks/fires, filmed shooting of fleeing Waco victims, bull dozing of
evidence, etc.

As I pointed out, anyone watching Waco Rules of Engagement will have
this pointed out to them.

Non-responsive answer duly noted.

Ignoring morons is one of my specialties ...

I note that this is the third time you've evaded answering the same
question. If you're unable or unwilling to defend your position, why
bother posting?

On 4/26/2011 11:37 AM, raven1 wrote:
On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 11:02:09 -0700, John
wrote:

On 4/26/2011 10:41 AM, raven1 wrote:
On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 09:51:32 -0700, John
wrote:

On 4/26/2011 7:06 AM, raven1 wrote:
On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 14:12:55 -0700, John
wrote:


The court hearing(s) and trials on all this are nothing short of
criminal, a sham, a joke ... I am sorry, I find any testimony given by
the victimized surviors of no value,
...

http://www.public-action.com/SkyWrit.../page/b_a.html
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/09/09/waco

I'm not sure as to your point: the second link here is to a survivor's
account blaming the FBI, but the first is an article discrediting his
account as unbelievable, and noting that his story has changed several
times.

http://www.carolmoore.net/waco/waco-speak-out.html

This is testimony of two survivors: Thibodeau, whose account your
first article has already dismissed as unreliable, and a second who
offers no insight as to how the fire started other than that he didn't
hear an order to set it.

But again, what's your point, as you've already stated you hold the
survivors' accounts of no value? Make up your mind.

Combined with what I have already stated,

Stop right there. You're using accounts that you've previously
dismissed as being of "no value" to support your position. Sorry, you
can't have it both ways. Moreover, as I pointed out, the first link
you provided dismisses the testimony from the second (and half of the
testimony from the third) as unbelievable, and the remainder of the
testimony in the third link doesn't implicate either side for starting
the fire, so it's of no aid to you.

and apparently you have
missed, with the resources and open intimidation of lethal force by
public servants, military, police, etc. only fools could oppose these
lethal forces without escaping death ...

Well, yes, if by "opposing" you mean "armed opposition", but several
of the Branch Davidians did peacefully leave the compound unharmed
during the stand-off...

You want absolutes when it is the very nature of the criminals to hide
their crimes ...

No, I just expect accusations to be supported by evidence, not
speculation.

Waco was a simple illegal home invasion perpetrated by government ...
they got their asses handed to them and had to murder the resisters in a
show of force.

"Had to"? Why?

I'd say that is pretty criminal fare done by tyrants
worldwide ... you seem to feel it is OK when American public servants do
crimes.

No, I don't. But I also don't feel it's OK to revise history.

That is all which has happened, that is all that happening ...

Regards,
JS

You are moron with desperate arguments ... watch Waco Rules of
Engagement, if you can't figure out Waco was a total crime for the
reasons already mentioned, you are simply attempting to pursue a "last
man standing argument", a tool of fools who have already lost the
argument and now fall upon their last hope ...

Regards,
JS

On 4/26/2011 11:42 AM, raven1 wrote:
On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 10:56:18 -0700, John
wrote:

On 4/26/2011 10:54 AM, raven1 wrote:
On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 10:20:01 -0700, John
wrote:

On 4/26/2011 10:13 AM, raven1 wrote:
On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 09:46:20 -0700, John
wrote:

On 4/26/2011 6:58 AM, raven1 wrote:

...
Do you wonder why most people regard Conspiracy Theorists as nuts?


Really?

Yes, actually.

To tell you the truth, the motives behind any crime I have ever seen in
life is/are drugs, money, power, wealth and rock and roll ...

And you think which was the motive here?

Criminals can keep coming up with a range of bizarre "motives", I find
this humorous ... but sad.

Regards,
JS

The facts and data surrounding Waco only prepared us for the future crimes.

How so?

No, really, I'm interested in your "logic" here.

The next false flag operation may enslave us, or set of a real
revolution. It only depends if enough know what has been going on.

A single video, waco rules of engagement, pushes Waco far above a simple
conspiracy!

Regards,
JS

You are stuck in a circular argument, the evidence prove Waco a crime, a
lot of the evidence has been pointed out here, bullets, CS gas,
tanks/fires, filmed shooting of fleeing Waco victims, bull dozing of
evidence, etc.

As I pointed out, anyone watching Waco Rules of Engagement will have
this pointed out to them.

Non-responsive answer duly noted.

Ignoring morons is one of my specialties ...

I note that this is the third time you've evaded answering the same
question. If you're unable or unwilling to defend your position, why
bother posting?

Yes, it has already been stated ... Waco Rules of Engagement covers all
well ...

Regards,
JS

On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 11:46:47 -0700, John Smith
wrote:

On 4/26/2011 11:37 AM, raven1 wrote:
On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 11:02:09 -0700, John
wrote:

On 4/26/2011 10:41 AM, raven1 wrote:
On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 09:51:32 -0700, John
wrote:

On 4/26/2011 7:06 AM, raven1 wrote:
On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 14:12:55 -0700, John
wrote:


The court hearing(s) and trials on all this are nothing short of
criminal, a sham, a joke ... I am sorry, I find any testimony given by
the victimized surviors of no value,
...

http://www.public-action.com/SkyWrit.../page/b_a.html
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/09/09/waco

I'm not sure as to your point: the second link here is to a survivor's
account blaming the FBI, but the first is an article discrediting his
account as unbelievable, and noting that his story has changed several
times.

http://www.carolmoore.net/waco/waco-speak-out.html

This is testimony of two survivors: Thibodeau, whose account your
first article has already dismissed as unreliable, and a second who
offers no insight as to how the fire started other than that he didn't
hear an order to set it.

But again, what's your point, as you've already stated you hold the
survivors' accounts of no value? Make up your mind.

Combined with what I have already stated,

Stop right there. You're using accounts that you've previously
dismissed as being of "no value" to support your position. Sorry, you
can't have it both ways. Moreover, as I pointed out, the first link
you provided dismisses the testimony from the second (and half of the
testimony from the third) as unbelievable, and the remainder of the
testimony in the third link doesn't implicate either side for starting
the fire, so it's of no aid to you.

and apparently you have
missed, with the resources and open intimidation of lethal force by
public servants, military, police, etc. only fools could oppose these
lethal forces without escaping death ...

Well, yes, if by "opposing" you mean "armed opposition", but several
of the Branch Davidians did peacefully leave the compound unharmed
during the stand-off...

You want absolutes when it is the very nature of the criminals to hide
their crimes ...

No, I just expect accusations to be supported by evidence, not
speculation.

Waco was a simple illegal home invasion perpetrated by government ...
they got their asses handed to them and had to murder the resisters in a
show of force.

"Had to"? Why?

I'd say that is pretty criminal fare done by tyrants
worldwide ... you seem to feel it is OK when American public servants do
crimes.

No, I don't. But I also don't feel it's OK to revise history.

That is all which has happened, that is all that happening ...

Regards,
JS

You are moron with desperate arguments ... watch Waco Rules of
Engagement, if you can't figure out Waco was a total crime for the
reasons already mentioned, you are simply attempting to pursue a "last
man standing argument", a tool of fools who have already lost the
argument and now fall upon their last hope ...

Your posturing aside, you failed to address anything I said above,
including your attempt to support your position with testimony you've
already dismissed as valueless. It doesn't seem like I'm the desperate
moron here.

On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 11:47:50 -0700, John Smith
wrote:

On 4/26/2011 11:42 AM, raven1 wrote:
On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 10:56:18 -0700, John
wrote:

On 4/26/2011 10:54 AM, raven1 wrote:
On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 10:20:01 -0700, John
wrote:

On 4/26/2011 10:13 AM, raven1 wrote:
On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 09:46:20 -0700, John
wrote:

On 4/26/2011 6:58 AM, raven1 wrote:

...
Do you wonder why most people regard Conspiracy Theorists as nuts?


Really?

Yes, actually.

To tell you the truth, the motives behind any crime I have ever seen in
life is/are drugs, money, power, wealth and rock and roll ...

And you think which was the motive here?

Criminals can keep coming up with a range of bizarre "motives", I find
this humorous ... but sad.

Regards,
JS

The facts and data surrounding Waco only prepared us for the future crimes.

How so?

No, really, I'm interested in your "logic" here.

The next false flag operation may enslave us, or set of a real
revolution. It only depends if enough know what has been going on.

A single video, waco rules of engagement, pushes Waco far above a simple
conspiracy!

Regards,
JS

You are stuck in a circular argument, the evidence prove Waco a crime, a
lot of the evidence has been pointed out here, bullets, CS gas,
tanks/fires, filmed shooting of fleeing Waco victims, bull dozing of
evidence, etc.

As I pointed out, anyone watching Waco Rules of Engagement will have
this pointed out to them.

Non-responsive answer duly noted.

Ignoring morons is one of my specialties ...

I note that this is the third time you've evaded answering the same
question. If you're unable or unwilling to defend your position, why
bother posting?

Yes, it has already been stated ...

If by "stated" you mean "evaded" perhaps.

Waco Rules of Engagement covers all
well ...

In another post in this thread, you provided three links, one of which
discounted the credibility of the other two, so forgive me if I'm
unconvinced that any citation you give will cover everything well.

On Apr 25, 4:24*pm, RHF wrote:

NOTE : Trying To Blame Reagan Instead of Clinton/Reno
-remember- That Clinton/Reno Gave "The Orders"
-and- Reagan Was In a Hospital Bed By Then -you-lose-

The orders she gave were based on lies made by Republicans in the ATF
and FBI.
The only mistake she made was in taking Republicans at their word of
honor.

On Apr 25, 11:38*pm, "fergo" wrote:
.. . . . .
- - "John Smith" wrote in message
- - The government, when it went in, had no intention
- - of letting koresh escape, alive!
- -
- - We have nothing to fear but our own public servants
- - serving others interests ...
.. . . . .
- Rubbish, he could have let them arrest him on day 1
- and none of the deaths would have happened.
- Instead he let his brainwashed followers of the cult die.

FERGO,
Keep Repeating The Government Cover-Story and the
Concealment of the Real Facts and the Honest Truth.
-cult-of-the-government- -brainwashed-by-the-government-

On Apr 26, 10:20*am, Peter Franks wrote:
On 4/26/2011 9:43 AM, John Smith wrote:









On 4/25/2011 11:38 PM, fergo wrote:

...
We have nothing to fear but our own public servants serving others
interests ...

Rubbish, he could have let them arrest him on day 1 and none of the
deaths would have happened. Instead he let his brainwashed followers of
the cult die.

They are heroes and patriots. And, while their sacrifices are horrible,
possibly necessary, it make the criminal nature of our public servants
to be placed high for all to see and their crimes made obvious. Because
to them, we all were highly awake and aware when 9/11 was perpetrated on
Americans.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood
of patriots and tyrants. ... God forbid we should ever be twenty years
without such a rebellion; what country can preserve its liberties if
their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve
the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms." -- Thomas Jefferson to
William Stephens Smith, 1787

Some would rather die free and upholding their freedoms, rights and
liberties and this makes our pussy public servants **** their pants ...

- The ATF attempted to executed an illegal and false search warrant;
the
- Davidians responded as if under attack (they were) and were
subsequently
- murdered.
-
- I am not a sympathizer with Koresh, his teachings, or practices,
however
- in this case, they were the victims of a militarized government in
an
- unjustified action.