waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <1993Apr20.212028.17463@twisto.eng.hou.compaq.com>,  costley@solo.eng.hou.compaq.com (Brett Costley) said:  >> *sigh* I just DON'T understand why they couldn't have waited Koresh&Co >> out.  [jlpicard@austin.ibm.com] > > Uh, maybe because it was costing hundreds of thousands of dollars a > day to just sit and wait.  Yeah.  We don't want to spend too much money preserving lives, after all.  Escpecially when they're all just a bunch of crazy fanatic cultists anyway, instead of normal people.  [The above is supposed to be dripping with sarcasm, but I'm too burned out right now (get it? "burned out" ha ha!) to tell if it's working. Look, folks, what David Koresh and his followers were was _broken_.  It takes a certain amount of flexibility and insanity to survive in this world and they didn't have enough of it and that wasn't their fault.  So please stop dancing on their graves, okay?]
In article <1pqsruINNiae@hp-col.col.hp.com> dduff@col.hp.com (Dave Duff) writes: >Does anyone really believe the Swiss have had no war within their borders >because every adult male owns a rifle? I'm a great admirer of the Swiss, but >500 years of peace on their turf has zilch to do with gun ownership. Can you >picture Hitler, with Panzers and Focke-Wulfs poised on the border, losing >sleep over a few thousand expert rifleman? Sure.   The Swiss population is (and well was) far larger than that. I think your question should be, "...losing sleep over a million expert riflemen?" Certainly he could have conquered Switzerland, but a million armed militiamen (especially in a mountainous area,  where tanks' effectiveness is limited) would have made it a real pain. The question a conqueror would ask, is "is it worth  the trouble?" The more difficult an invasion is, the more likely the answer would be "no." Certainly a million riflemen (as opposed to a professional army of only ten or twenty thousand, the best a country the size of Switzerland could support), makes invasions more difficult.  >Hitler stayed out of Switzerland because the Swiss run the money in this >world.  Really? In 1939? I'm not even sure you could prove that today (despite the steriotype.) Certainly the Swiss bankers were not essential to the German war-time economy.
In article <93108.025818U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> writes: >I have heard many opinions on this subject and would like to hear more from >the people on the net. > >Say you're in a situation where you have to pull a gun on somebody.  You >give them a chance to get away but they decided to continue in their >action anyway and you end up shooting and killing them.  My question is >what do you do?  Should you stay and wait for the cops or should you >collect your brass (if you're using a semi-auto) and get out of there >(provided of course you don't think that you have been seen)?  What kind >of laws are on the books regarding this type of situation?  What would >be the most likely thing to happen to you if you stayed and waited and >it was a first offense?  What would happen if you took off but someone >saw you and you were caught? >  In Massachusetts, you will likely be arrested for murder, but if you convince the cops/DA that you used lethal force because of threat of death or serious bodily harm, then the charges would probably be dropped.  If you run away and are later caught, then you will have a much harder time convincing cops/judge/jury of your innocence.  Going "on the lam" is seen as an indication of guilt by a lot of people.
In article <93112.230800MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> Mark 'Mark' Sachs <MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> writes: >In article <93112.153005MGB@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>, ><MGB@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> says: >>From A.P. :  According to numerous accounts by those in the compound, >>the fire was started by an armoured vehicle crushing a large propane >>tank, and turning over numerous gas lanterns. > >Oh? Then why did the smoke and flames start from three different places? >In particular, three different places where there were no APV's? > And just where is the evidence for this? FBI sayso. The Texas Medical Examiner refuted 2 of their lies today.   >And if the government did start the fire, then why weren't people trying >to get out of the compound?  Let me put you in a building, pump in CS, knock the walls down around you and see how fast you find an exit.  >And besides... oh, I don't know why I'm even bothering. > I don't know why either, you're willing to swallow everything fed you. Good boy.  >>I find it tremendously chilling that so many people seem willing to accept >>the governments story, despite much evidence to the contrary. > >I find it tremendously chilling that so many people seem eager to believe >a murderous, heavily-armed religious cult, despite much evidence to the >contrary. Thought Experiment: Suppose this exact same thing happened under >the Bush administration. What would your answer be then? Would you still >prefer to believe the cultists?  Oh a Clinton apologist, why didn't you *say* so.  >(No, I don't really expect a response to that challenge.) > >>But then >>again, that is how Mr. Clinton was elected, by people who believe that >>his campaign promisses would be respected by him once he got into office. > >Um, isn't that how all politicians are elected? > >>If people will believe that of any politican, it is little wonder they >>will believe all of the factoids being given out as fact by the >>Clinton/Reno/FBI/BATF confederation. > >So is there any particular reason the gummint decided to slaughter eighty >people? Are they, like, just plain evil, or what? Did they just wake up >one day, stretch and yawn, and throw a dart at a map of the United States >to figure out who to oppress that day? I'm eager to know.  The kgBATF was expecting a quick victory while the cameras rolled, however, they were the only ones with a script.  >And does Bill Clinton have cooler theme music than Darth Vader? How is he >on diabolical laughter? Does he look good in a cape? These things MUST be >investigated. You first.  Hey, you're the apologist, *you* tell us.  >   "...so I propose that we destroy the moon, neatly solving that problem." >[Your blood pressure just went up.]        Mark Sachs IS: mbs110@psuvm.psu.edu >   DISCLAIMER: If PSU knew I had opinions, they'd try to charge me for them.
In <93109.13404334AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET> 34AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET writes:  >I will be surprised if this post makes it past the censors, >but here goes:  Fret not, you made it.  >I have predicted this from the start, but God, it sickens me to see >it happen. I had hoped I was wrong. I had hoped that there was >still some shred of the America I grew up with, and loved, left >alive. I was wrong. The Nazis have won.  Not while we still have our guns.  <evil grin>    Hey, gang, it's not about duck hunting, or about dark alleys, it's about black-clad, helmeted and booted troops storming houses and violating civil rights under color of law.   Are YOU ready to defend YOUR Constitution?
In article <1993Apr23.153005.8237@starbase.trincoll.edu>  () writes: > In article <1r6h4vINN844@clem.handheld.com>, jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De > Arras) wrote: > >    > > You seem to make two points.  No one ultimately oversees the federal   agencies   > > you mention, and since Koresh "apparently" has a different view point from   your   > > Baptist upbringing, then he is not worthy of protection from religious   > > persecution.  As to being the Messiah, is not Christ within us all? > >  > > Must be comforting to belong to a government approved religion. > >  > > Baptists are a cult, two, BTW, under most of the definitions in the   dictionary   > > of "cult". > >  >  > I've yet to meet a group of Baptists who were stockpiling Cambell's soup > and M-16's/AR-15's and banging/marrying thirteen yuear olds.   I don't recall saying Baptists do any of that.  Though I suppose some do.  And   none of them are listed in the dictionary as characteristics of a cult.  My   mother stockpiled Campbells soup when it was on sale.    > You're a sorry > son of a bitch if you can't draw a distinction between these two things.  You are an intolerent, foul-mouthed human.  You sound like you are ready to   join the KKK or neo-nazis, with a narrow mind like yours.  > People like you cheapen our constitution by using it to defend sociopaths > who aren't deserved of it. Get a life and chill on the paranoia. >   Far from it, I defend the rights of anyone to be different under our   constitution, which was formed in part to protect religious cults which had   been persecuted in England before migrating here to be free.  You are the one   endangering our constitution.  > joe.kusmierczak@mail.trincoll.edu  Jim -- jmd@handheld.com
From article <1993Apr23.153005.8237@starbase.trincoll.edu>, by  ():  >  > I've yet to meet a group of Baptists who were stockpiling Cambell's soup > and M-16's/AR-15's and banging/marrying thirteen yuear (sic) olds.   So out of the numerous baptists that you hang around with you haven't seen any of the above behavior? Which trait (stocking food for more than a week, or owning a firearm) is the definition of a cult? What proof ( aside from David's aquittal ) leads you to believe that any "banging/marrying" of thirteen year olds was going on? Does your wife know that you equate 'marriage' with 'banging'?  > You're a sorry > son of a bitch if you can't draw a distinction between these two things.  Since this guy doesn't like the concept of freedom of religion, he's going to insult you AND your mom!  > People like you cheapen our constitution by using it to defend > sociopaths who aren't deserved of it. Get a life and chill on the > paranoia.  Sociopath - person with asocial or antisocial beahavior. Sociopaths - 200 persons, all who can't stand other people, sharing              the same ranch-house.  > joe.kusmierczak@mail.trincoll.edu                                 ^^^---It all suddenly becomes clear.  Why does everyone discover the Net in the spring?
This is my first time on the network, but I am very concerned with this incident in Waco.  I will refrain from stating my opinions until after I have read the FAQ.  Could someone tell me how to get this?  I must say that I believe the Govt. was wrong in the actions that they took in this situation.
oldham@ces.cwru.edu (Daniel Oldham) babbles:  What happened in Waco is not the fault of the BATF. If they would of had the proper equipment and personal then they could of captured the compound on the initial assault and none of this would of happened.  	If they'd gone to the door and knocked on it to serve the 	warrant, like the Sheriff had done 3 other times, they 	wouldn't have needed to HAVE an initial assault.  But then, 	Herr Klinton and Attorney Gen'l Reno wouldn't have been 	able to have told such heroic stories about how they 	"protected" the rest of us from a group of people who 	kept to themselves, miles out in the prairie.  The BATF needs more people, better weapons and more armored transports. When they meet hostile fire they should be able to use more force instead of retreating to a stand off. If you are going to do a job then do it right. The BATF is there to protect us and they must have the proper equipment and people to do the job.  	The BATF needs to be disbanded.  This out of control group 	of Rambo wannabees is a danger to the Republic.  With the WoD and the increased crime in the streets the BATF is needed more now then ever. If they blast away a few good fokes then that is the price we all have to pay for law and order in this country.  	Well, I figure you're going to get flamed pretty badly by 	everybody else for this incredibly stupid statement, so I'll 	just let it pass for now.  	Case Western reserve, huh?  Do the Feds know about that big  	stockpile of automatic weapons and crack you have in  your 	house?  Are you the same Daniel Oldham that lives on Orchard 	Drive?  Just so they get the address right, that is...  Look at all the good people that died in wars to protect this great country of ours.  	Well, it used to be a great country.  Now I'm not so sure.   	I knew a few of those good people who died in wars;  I was 	in Viet Nam.  I can assure you, none of us fought to protect 	the right of the government to attack its own citizens with 	military force without provocation.  (Hint: serving a search warrant 	is NOT sufficient provocation to stage a military style assault 	on a religious group.  At Least not here in the US.  Maybe in 	Iraq, or Syria...)  With the arms build up in Waco they needed to hit that compound with mega fire power. They could of gone in there blasting and killed a few women and kids but it would of been better then letting them all burn to death 51 days later.
In article <C5sv88.HJy@news.cso.uiuc.edu> irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine) writes: >>Do YOU eat all your food cold? > >Ever hear of electric ovens or microwaves?  Very popular. >Electric stoves outside metro-areas especially.  The Dividians didn't have that option after the FBI cut off their electricity.
dfo@vttoulu.tko.vtt.fi (Foxvog Douglas) writes:  >Nerve gas and mustard gas are well defined.  Other poisonous >gasses should be individually banned only if it can be shown that there >is no use not related to weaponry.  Licenses should be available for >research purposes on such chemicals.  >I am not a lawyer, but these ideas could certainly be a basis for  >definitions.  I hope you realize how trivial it is to manufacture these compounds.  Given about $10k in lab equipment and chemicals (which are commercially available) and given the knowledge that I have (graduating BS, Ch, 1993) I could  synthesize enough of these compounds to make a serious dent in the population of several major US cities.  As also noted, the knowledge is there for the production of nuclear weapons.  It's not even that restricted.  The only thing is the expense.    Now I'm not going around making these things, but it's not 'cause of any law; I simply don't get any marginal benefit out of killing anyone.  Any law you enact in this respect is only going to give you the ability to  add a charge against someone who does make and use said weapons.  In the case of chemical agents, I seriously doubt that you would even know that someone had set up a lab until after the weapons had been used.    Part of the trouble with the chemical-weapons ban treaty between the US and the USSR is that many of the precursors to chemical weapons such as GB and Sarin, etc., is that they have very valid commercial uses, and  it is very easy to divert those precursors to chemical weapons manufacture without anyone knowing about it.  >>< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu > >><  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >   >--  >doug foxvog >douglas.foxvog@vtt.fi
In article <1993Apr16.194708.13273@vax.oxford.ac.uk> jaj@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:   >What all you turkey pro-pistol and automatic weapons fanatics don't seem to   >realize is that the rest of us *laugh* at you. You don't make me angry, you   >just make me chuckle - I remeber being in Bellingham, Washington and seeing a   >...  You consider laughing at others civilized behavior?  What was I supposed to learn from your article?  Treat people like dogs?
In article <93110.11265034AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET>, <34AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET> writes: > As a minor point of interest, earlier news reports claim to have > been quoting the Governor of Texas when Her Holiness referred to > the Dividians as _Mormons_ and called for their expulsion > from TX. Any Texans have details?  The Davidians are a 60-year-old splinter from the Seventh Day Adventists, if that's the information you were looking for. --
In <1r1887INNcsd@clem.handheld.com> jmd@cube.handheld.com writes:  > In article <1r0v4c$i1j@menudo.uh.edu> HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)   > writes: > > In <1r0poqINNc4k@clem.handheld.com> jmd@cube.handheld.com writes: > >  > >   According to KIKK radio in Houston, all nine survivors are either in hos- > > pitals or in jails.  Including the two who allegedly helped start the  > >fires. >  > In the FBI briefing, no mention was made of having the fire starters in   > custody.    Which one?  The one yesterday, or has there been another?  If it was yester- day, catch up.    IMO, 90% of all "conspiracy" charges are easily explained by the simple fact that in these days of instantaneous news transmission, all kinds of stuff gets said when people really just don't know what the hell's going on. Then the story changes once the facts are in and suddenly cries of "its all a  whitewash!" start.  Naturally, everybody wants to cover his/her ass.  > > > Why the total isolation? > >  > >   Well, it wasn't TOTAL, 100% isolation.  After the lawyer snuck in the  > > first time, they (the FBI, etc) let him go back inside several times, in- > >cluding, I think, the day before the final assualt. > > Why not his mother?  Why not the media?    Damnfino.  I just tend to take issue with absolute statements that are ob- viously wrong on their face and tend to inflame, not inform.  The isolation was significant, but not total.  semper fi,
In article <8110356@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> ron@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Ron Miller) writes:  >> From: urbin@interlan.interlan.com (Mark Urbin) >>  >> >RM:Just a short thought:  >> >When you ask the question of the "authorities" or sponsors of buyback >> >programs whether they will check for stolen weapons and they answer >> >"no, it's total amnesty". > >>     Please note that the $50 given for each firearm, in the Boston `buy  >> back' will not be in cash, but money orders.  How much `total amnesty" can  >> you get if you leave paper trail behind? > >In the latest case in Denver, they were giving away tickets to a Denver >Nuggets basketball game.  > >How traceable is a money order?  (I don't know. Haven't used one in 20 years)         Money orders operate pretty much like checks, with both parties being supposed to sign them.  I assume you'd have to show the buy-back people an ID, and you'd then have a money order made out to that ID.           As far as traceable as a practical matter, I don't know, it would depend on whether they bother to computerize who the recipient's name is on the money order and bother keying that sort of thing in.  I'd say certainly the police and the buyback people would keep a record of who they gave money orders out to.  >Is that even an issue if the weapons aren't checked for being stolen?         There might be some questions asked, I suppose, if somebody  brought in a number of weapons each time over a series of "buy back" programs.
dhartung@chinet.chi.il.us (Dan Hartung) writes:  >Of course, true or no, this is a clever attempt to make them seem harmless >folk minding their own business.  Nice touch - using the word *seem*. --  Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>
In article <C519Mt.Apq@magpie.linknet.com> manes@magpie.linknet.com (Steve   Manes) writes: > Jim De Arras (jmd@cube.handheld.com) wrote: > : In article <C4u3x5.Fw7@magpie.linknet.com> manes@magpie.linknet.com (Steve   > : Manes) writes: > : [...] > : > I don't know how anyone can state that gun control could have NO > : > effect on homicide rates.  There were over 250 >accidental< handgun > : > homicides in America in 1990, most with licensed weapons.  More > : > American children accidentally shot other children last year (15) > : > than all the handgun homicides in Great Britain.  (Source: National > : > Safety Council.  Please... no dictionary arguments about RATES vs > : > TOTAL NUMBERS, okay?  They're offered for emphasis, not comparison). > : >  >  > : You're a great debater.  You chose your sources of information, claim them > : to  be superior.  I'm not aware of using any numbers from the ozone, unless   you consider those I got from you to be such. >  > I've made no such claim.  Please direct my attention towards any > posting of mine where I claimed superior sources of information. > It's probably because I bothered to post any references at all while > others seem content to post numbers pulled from the ozone, that > you've confused it with fact-twisting.  If so, I apologize.   >   Yes, You state the reference, and then YOU claim it's a good or fair treatment.    > : then take those twisted numbers and twist them further by trying   >  > Well then, here's fair opportunity for you to prove that I've "twisted > numbers."  On what grounds do you contradict those references?  Do you have > any citations... any sources of your own that I can take similar > gratuitous shots at? >   You fail to see the differences between absolute numbers and rates.  > : to compare absolute numbers between two countries that have major   population   > : differences, the USA and GB, and then whine that you are afraid someone   might   > : attack your process, and so claim the numbers are for "emphasis, not   > : comparison"?  Emphasis of what? >  > Nitpicking and scolding is a whiney debating style, Jim. >   No, you just miss the point.  By your methods, I can prove gun control to be a   total failure.  New York's total homocide count, with it's strict gun control,   is MUCH higher than Rhode Island's, with it's less strict gun control.  FAR   more folks are killed in New York, than Rhode Island.  Therefore, according to   Mane Logic(tm), gun control has made New York a much more dangerous place than   Rhode Island.  Remember, it's "Nitpicking" and "a whiney debating style" to   point out the differences between New York and Rhode Island that might defeat   my argument.  > : Anything else is blowing smoke. >  > You seddit, brudda.  Now you agree?  Wow, a break-through! >   > --  > Stephen Manes					   manes@magpie.linknet.com > Manes and Associates				   New York, NY, USA  =o&>o
High power assault gun?  Why, you must be talking about the 155mm Howitzer.  Or did you want to try a 16 incher?  Or one of the German railway guns?
In article <1993Apr23.143857.5484@oneb.almanac.bc.ca>, kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay) writes:  	[...deleted...] >  > Hear, hear! I'd also like to see the autopsy reports confirm news reports > that multiple victims were found shot (in the head), and in positions > inconsistent with fire victims. It is simply too early to draw conclusions > either way about this nasty incident, but I tend to believe the government > side.                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > ^^^^ > --   At least you're consistent.  I'm sure the highly propagandized Germans tended to believe their government's version too in the thirties and forties as those "different" highly demonized Jewish "cultists" met their fate.  Always trust your government.  > The Old Frog's Almanac - A Salute to That Old Frog Hisse'f, Ryugen Fisher  >      (604) 245-3205 (v32) (604) 245-4366 (2400x4) SCO XENIX 2.3.2 GT  >   Ladysmith, British Columbia, CANADA. Serving Central Vancouver Island   > with public access UseNet and Internet Mail - home to the Holocaust Almanac
cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:  >In article <1993Apr23.162517.14029@hpcvusn.cv.hp.com>, kam@cv.hp.com (Keith Marchington) writes:  >That's another sad thing.  I'd expect this sort of shit from the BATF. >But I'm goddamn disappointed in the FBI.  They used to be professionals.  Apparently you are unfamiliar with the history of the FBI. You might try looking up articles from the 70's on the FBI's Cointelpro operation for starters. --  Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>
In article <1993Apr23.140355.25353@icd.ab.com> kdw@icd.ab.com (Kenneth D. Whitehead) writes: >dusek@rtsg.mot.com (James P. Dusek) writes: >>>	If the FBI started the fire, why didn`t people flee the >>>burning building? > >Could be a lot of reasons, James...  We won't know until the survivors are >allowed to speak for themselves, rather than through an FBI spokesman.  Some of the survivors have been "interviewed" on TV as they were going to or returning from court. They basically said, no way was there any kind of suicide pact or attempt.