![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
I'm often tempted to stop believing in information, as it pertains to world and national events. By the time it gets to me, someone has manipulated it.
A prime example of this is the Waco incident. It seems that a significant group of people still thinks the FBI "went in with flamethrowers."
OK, let me get this straight: A cult leader has a fortified compound full of followers so deeply brainwashed, they all surrendered their wives and children to him. He preached that he would bring about the coming of the Apocalypse constantly, that he was the Messiah, and that he would martyr himself. And I haven't seen any evidence that the FBI used anything but tear gas, and tanks for the purpose of knocking down walls.
Searching the Internet for "Waco tank flame", the top links are an interview with comedian Bill Hicks and some fat Comic-Book-Guy looking dude. This man has gone before audiences and claimed that there was not one single charge of child abuse coming out of that compound.
Is there even such a thing as a tank that shoots flames? And if there is, is that what it looks like? Isn't this the same clip where, if they played just a few more frames, we would be seeing that the "flames" were reflections of light off sheet metal, once the sheet metal gives way. It's quite odd how the video freezes all of a sudden after just a second or two.
And apparently there's this whole documentary out there that proves that the FBI is super-evil.
Tell me, in the history of law enforcement, how many standoffs of this scale don't end in massive injury and/or death? Certainly the worst-case scenario is what happened here, but the best-case scenario is what happened recently in Moscow. Knockout gas that, oops, injured and killed a lot of people anyway. I'll believe in incompetence in both cases, since at Waco they should have predicted a Jim Jones move and had emergency equipment, and in Moscow they should have told the hospitals how to treat the victims. But, in both cases, the standoffs were brought about by religious fanatics hell-bent on martyring themselves. If one hostage-taker identifies an invading force of any kind, those buildings go DOWN, and everyone in them, and they spend eternity being serviced by seventy-two virgins. OK, maybe Koresh didn't have that many in his compound, but that's not the point.
The point is, in my mind, there was no way the FBI could have brought people out alive. And the worst part of it is, David Koresh totally succeeded in dying as a martyr. I wouldn't be surprised if there are people in Texas who still believe he was Jesus Christ and await his return.
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
ernunnos has somewhere in his house a video documentary that proves the FBI did have flamethrowers, no doubt with lots of interviews with experts saying how certain things couldn't possibly be true, lots of 8x10 color glossy photos with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back explaining what each one was. Maybe it has some undercover footage of Janet Reno meeting with greys saying "But isn't there a way we can kill all the children?" And I'm sure that if I watched it, I would change my whole tune, and then everything I wrote before this paragraph would be a total lie. The FBI would no longer have done their best that just wasn't good enough, they would instead be a malicious organization bent on crushing freedom. Which, I suppose, gels with all the stuff I'm reading on blogs these days.
So there are two irreconcilable sets of facts:
1. The FBI used only tear gas and ramming tanks.
2. The FBI ignited the compound purposely.
So I'm to believe that the FBI thought burning down the compound, with everyone in it, was the best option, even though it played into Koresh's PR campaign of apocalypse and martyrdom, even though there were cameras everywhere.
1. The Branch-Davidians killed themselves.
2. The Branch-Davidians did not kill themselves; the FBI killed them, and could have saved some people if they wanted to.
The nature of suicide bombings proves that religious people can be convinced to kill themselves if they think it'll get them into heaven's VIP room. More troubling is the implication that the FBI was so bent on murder that they wouldn't have attempted an assault that had at least a chance of extracting survivors. Certainly it would be easier to bring a fire truck right behind this magic flaming Bradley, than to just torch the place to the ground and say "OK, now let's cover it up!"
1. Followers were abused, and had their rights taken away.
2. Followers were not abused, and could leave, express dissent, or at least kiss their own wives, without fear of retribution.
It's hip to believe #2, because the mainstream media believes #1, and everything they say is automatically suspect and pumped up for ratings. That teenage girl I saw on TV talking about how she was abused, and how they were taught the proper way to commit suicide by gunshot, and so forth, I'm to believe she was coached, or hired.
It is at this point that you realize that my information comes from two sources:
1. Mainstream media, which is sensationalistic at times, but also quite loyal to the government.
2. Alternative media, which is even more sensationalistic, and typically distrusts everything the government or mainstream media says out of principle.
Either one of them could be lying to me, or simply making it all up. So let's put it to the ironclad test of my common sense.
My common sense tells me that, yes, the FBI fucked up, but only in the sense that they thought they'd commit suicide by gunshot, like the girl described. But that would risk survivors, since certainly some Judases would hesitate, escape, hide, or play dead. But, hey, it was good enough for Jim Jones, it'll be good enough for Koresh. But, Koresh had a better idea, which would leave no survivors. The Davidians had a motive; I fail to see the FBI's motive for reasons I've already stated.
My common sense says that, whether it's a massacre or a botched rescue attempt, it's a public relations disaster to leave no survivors. Therefore, had the FBI anticipated a fire, they would have had a fire truck and a water supply nearby.
My common sense says that, even if someone comes up with a motive for a massacre with no survivors, there are easier ways of setting fires than with a tank. The compound had its electricity cut off; there were plenty of candles, lanterns, fuel sources, and other excuses for fires to just "happen".
But I am also afflicted with a common sense that says that common sense is imperfect, and that my assumptions could all be false, and that I have some sort of duty to constantly challenge every assumption I have. And in order to do that, I have to submit myself to repeated disillusionment. Peeling away layer after layer of lies, until the truth is all that is there, and if I don't do that, then I'm a pawn of the media. If I only go one layer down, I'm a pawn of the alternative media. If I go two layers down, I'm an enemy of the alternative media, and so forth.
But, really, I don't think there's a bottom layer.
So, in reality, I suppose it's like choosing paper or plastic bags at the supermarket. You don't decide based on which does the least damage to the environment, as the hack stand-up comic would. You decide based on which one is easier to carry, what you're carrying in them, and so forth.
And I think about the options, and think, well, so much news about world events is bullshit, and it's depressing, and I'd be better off if I never watched the news or read news blogs at all. I only read them out of boredom to begin with.
The only consequence that comes out of reading the news is that it makes me forget about the world's beauty, by putting ugliness right in front of my face where I can get a good whiff. You could say, then, that news is the opposite of travel to me.
Because, then, I went to Berlin, and I took that walk that showed me how horrible events kept happening, but that everything ended up OK in the end. Fascism ripped through Germany and then through Europe, and not only did it end, but a few hundred Jews survived the whole war right in Berlin. Then the Communists walled off their half of the country, but people escaped anyway. Then a botched press conference ultimately led to the wall coming down entirely. And today, the city is growing, and thriving, and beautiful, and Americans and Jews and Russians can just walk around and take pictures and go to museums that have successfully preserved artifacts of civilizations thousands of years old. It's all so inspiring.
It's much better than news, and media.
I remember walking into Virgin Megastore and seeing two enormous coffee-table books on display. One of them was "EVERYTHING YOU KNOW IS WRONG" and the other was "YOU ARE BEING LIED TO". I suppose I'm not the only one who wants to write two sequels: "EVERYTHING IN 'EVERYTHING YOU KNOW IS WRONG' IS WRONG" and "YOU WERE BEING LIED TO IN 'YOU ARE BEING LIED TO'", and then two metasequels whose titles can be easily imagined. I looked at the table of contents for one of the books on Amazon.com, and yes, it looks like important information about dire situations that I have no power to do anything at all about. I'm all for challenging preconceptions, but is the human mind capable of taking in so much paradigm shift at the same time? Am I a coward for running away from this kind of assault?
I just want to enjoy life, or what's left of it. Thinking about how short-sighted corporations are sending even our programming jobs to India, well, that just gives me rage that I don't know what to do with, or it makes me too depressed to enjoy other things. Even though the company I work for has done quite well in this economy, and my job isn't in much danger at all; I don't see the kind of ominous warning signs that other people post about.
Unless I shut myself out, this information is going to find me one way or another. How can I deal with it and yet maintain a healthy attitude?
A prime example of this is the Waco incident. It seems that a significant group of people still thinks the FBI "went in with flamethrowers."
OK, let me get this straight: A cult leader has a fortified compound full of followers so deeply brainwashed, they all surrendered their wives and children to him. He preached that he would bring about the coming of the Apocalypse constantly, that he was the Messiah, and that he would martyr himself. And I haven't seen any evidence that the FBI used anything but tear gas, and tanks for the purpose of knocking down walls.
Searching the Internet for "Waco tank flame", the top links are an interview with comedian Bill Hicks and some fat Comic-Book-Guy looking dude. This man has gone before audiences and claimed that there was not one single charge of child abuse coming out of that compound.
Is there even such a thing as a tank that shoots flames? And if there is, is that what it looks like? Isn't this the same clip where, if they played just a few more frames, we would be seeing that the "flames" were reflections of light off sheet metal, once the sheet metal gives way. It's quite odd how the video freezes all of a sudden after just a second or two.
And apparently there's this whole documentary out there that proves that the FBI is super-evil.
Tell me, in the history of law enforcement, how many standoffs of this scale don't end in massive injury and/or death? Certainly the worst-case scenario is what happened here, but the best-case scenario is what happened recently in Moscow. Knockout gas that, oops, injured and killed a lot of people anyway. I'll believe in incompetence in both cases, since at Waco they should have predicted a Jim Jones move and had emergency equipment, and in Moscow they should have told the hospitals how to treat the victims. But, in both cases, the standoffs were brought about by religious fanatics hell-bent on martyring themselves. If one hostage-taker identifies an invading force of any kind, those buildings go DOWN, and everyone in them, and they spend eternity being serviced by seventy-two virgins. OK, maybe Koresh didn't have that many in his compound, but that's not the point.
The point is, in my mind, there was no way the FBI could have brought people out alive. And the worst part of it is, David Koresh totally succeeded in dying as a martyr. I wouldn't be surprised if there are people in Texas who still believe he was Jesus Christ and await his return.
ernunnos has somewhere in his house a video documentary that proves the FBI did have flamethrowers, no doubt with lots of interviews with experts saying how certain things couldn't possibly be true, lots of 8x10 color glossy photos with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back explaining what each one was. Maybe it has some undercover footage of Janet Reno meeting with greys saying "But isn't there a way we can kill all the children?" And I'm sure that if I watched it, I would change my whole tune, and then everything I wrote before this paragraph would be a total lie. The FBI would no longer have done their best that just wasn't good enough, they would instead be a malicious organization bent on crushing freedom. Which, I suppose, gels with all the stuff I'm reading on blogs these days.So there are two irreconcilable sets of facts:
1. The FBI used only tear gas and ramming tanks.
2. The FBI ignited the compound purposely.
So I'm to believe that the FBI thought burning down the compound, with everyone in it, was the best option, even though it played into Koresh's PR campaign of apocalypse and martyrdom, even though there were cameras everywhere.
1. The Branch-Davidians killed themselves.
2. The Branch-Davidians did not kill themselves; the FBI killed them, and could have saved some people if they wanted to.
The nature of suicide bombings proves that religious people can be convinced to kill themselves if they think it'll get them into heaven's VIP room. More troubling is the implication that the FBI was so bent on murder that they wouldn't have attempted an assault that had at least a chance of extracting survivors. Certainly it would be easier to bring a fire truck right behind this magic flaming Bradley, than to just torch the place to the ground and say "OK, now let's cover it up!"
1. Followers were abused, and had their rights taken away.
2. Followers were not abused, and could leave, express dissent, or at least kiss their own wives, without fear of retribution.
It's hip to believe #2, because the mainstream media believes #1, and everything they say is automatically suspect and pumped up for ratings. That teenage girl I saw on TV talking about how she was abused, and how they were taught the proper way to commit suicide by gunshot, and so forth, I'm to believe she was coached, or hired.
It is at this point that you realize that my information comes from two sources:
1. Mainstream media, which is sensationalistic at times, but also quite loyal to the government.
2. Alternative media, which is even more sensationalistic, and typically distrusts everything the government or mainstream media says out of principle.
Either one of them could be lying to me, or simply making it all up. So let's put it to the ironclad test of my common sense.
My common sense tells me that, yes, the FBI fucked up, but only in the sense that they thought they'd commit suicide by gunshot, like the girl described. But that would risk survivors, since certainly some Judases would hesitate, escape, hide, or play dead. But, hey, it was good enough for Jim Jones, it'll be good enough for Koresh. But, Koresh had a better idea, which would leave no survivors. The Davidians had a motive; I fail to see the FBI's motive for reasons I've already stated.
My common sense says that, whether it's a massacre or a botched rescue attempt, it's a public relations disaster to leave no survivors. Therefore, had the FBI anticipated a fire, they would have had a fire truck and a water supply nearby.
My common sense says that, even if someone comes up with a motive for a massacre with no survivors, there are easier ways of setting fires than with a tank. The compound had its electricity cut off; there were plenty of candles, lanterns, fuel sources, and other excuses for fires to just "happen".
But I am also afflicted with a common sense that says that common sense is imperfect, and that my assumptions could all be false, and that I have some sort of duty to constantly challenge every assumption I have. And in order to do that, I have to submit myself to repeated disillusionment. Peeling away layer after layer of lies, until the truth is all that is there, and if I don't do that, then I'm a pawn of the media. If I only go one layer down, I'm a pawn of the alternative media. If I go two layers down, I'm an enemy of the alternative media, and so forth.
But, really, I don't think there's a bottom layer.
So, in reality, I suppose it's like choosing paper or plastic bags at the supermarket. You don't decide based on which does the least damage to the environment, as the hack stand-up comic would. You decide based on which one is easier to carry, what you're carrying in them, and so forth.
And I think about the options, and think, well, so much news about world events is bullshit, and it's depressing, and I'd be better off if I never watched the news or read news blogs at all. I only read them out of boredom to begin with.
The only consequence that comes out of reading the news is that it makes me forget about the world's beauty, by putting ugliness right in front of my face where I can get a good whiff. You could say, then, that news is the opposite of travel to me.
Because, then, I went to Berlin, and I took that walk that showed me how horrible events kept happening, but that everything ended up OK in the end. Fascism ripped through Germany and then through Europe, and not only did it end, but a few hundred Jews survived the whole war right in Berlin. Then the Communists walled off their half of the country, but people escaped anyway. Then a botched press conference ultimately led to the wall coming down entirely. And today, the city is growing, and thriving, and beautiful, and Americans and Jews and Russians can just walk around and take pictures and go to museums that have successfully preserved artifacts of civilizations thousands of years old. It's all so inspiring.
It's much better than news, and media.
I remember walking into Virgin Megastore and seeing two enormous coffee-table books on display. One of them was "EVERYTHING YOU KNOW IS WRONG" and the other was "YOU ARE BEING LIED TO". I suppose I'm not the only one who wants to write two sequels: "EVERYTHING IN 'EVERYTHING YOU KNOW IS WRONG' IS WRONG" and "YOU WERE BEING LIED TO IN 'YOU ARE BEING LIED TO'", and then two metasequels whose titles can be easily imagined. I looked at the table of contents for one of the books on Amazon.com, and yes, it looks like important information about dire situations that I have no power to do anything at all about. I'm all for challenging preconceptions, but is the human mind capable of taking in so much paradigm shift at the same time? Am I a coward for running away from this kind of assault?
I just want to enjoy life, or what's left of it. Thinking about how short-sighted corporations are sending even our programming jobs to India, well, that just gives me rage that I don't know what to do with, or it makes me too depressed to enjoy other things. Even though the company I work for has done quite well in this economy, and my job isn't in much danger at all; I don't see the kind of ominous warning signs that other people post about.
Unless I shut myself out, this information is going to find me one way or another. How can I deal with it and yet maintain a healthy attitude?
no subject
And there you go! ^_^
PS> thetruth.com ... ain't. ^_^
no subject
... I haven't seen any evidence that the FBI used anything but tear gas, and tanks for the purpose of knocking down walls.
They used the tanks because the walls were brick, IIRC. Normal swat vehicles don't have the kahunas to punch through a brick wall. The "official" explanation of the fire was that a tear gas canister hit a candle, or some other flammable substance (the propellant of the gas is also flammable, I might add), and started it when the cannister vented.
Is there even such a thing as a tank that shoots flames?
Yes, there is. Tank mounted flame throwers have not been used in recent times however. (No need to) Flamethrowers are more of a close range anti-personnel weapon.
Therefore, had the FBI anticipated a fire, they would have had a fire truck and a water supply nearby.
Unfortunately, they did not anticipate a fire, and thus didn't have the equipment nearby. In addition the compound was in a rural part of waco. No easy fire service. But then, a lot of mistake were made in the waco incident.
Also remember that people's blogs are their opinions. and that there are a lot of "conspiracy theorists" on the web (with apologies to
The reason that Waco is used as an example is probably because the FBI screwed up. Our government is prone to mistakes (and quiet! all that laughing!), and sometimes people die as a result. All this does is give fodder to people to create half truths and outright false statements on how things should have been done, and everything else.
Dealing with a suspect statement is easy. Ask for proof and hard evidence. remember that video, especially low quality video, is easily forged or tweaked, and it is all too easy to take an artifact of the video as something that was not there.
no subject
That said, I don't have the patience or attention span to really pay much attention or worry about gov't involvement in much of anything; I just keep in mind that like any other human being, Government officials are highly likely to do or say whatever is necessary to cover their asses when they fuck up.
And with that said, I would say that the books you mentioned are very interesting, even if you don't believe what they say; I just like reading other people's ideas and thoughts, whether I agree or disagree. Much of it is available at www.disinfo.com , as well. They cover more than government conspiracies. Fun stuff.
As a religion major...
no subject
Re: