32 little American kids died in Waco. Clinton and Reno allowed weapons that were banned under the Geneva convention to be used against little, innocent American boys and girls. Those kids ended up dying.
In Beslan, men who say they are Muslims shot 243 little boys and girls. Those kids died.
Which is worse? Banned weapons being used by the American government under Clinton against American boys and girls or the Beslan events?
2007-11-08 00:32:51 · 11 answers · asked by junglejoe 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Even though I think what Clinton, Clark and Reno did at Waco was a travesty, I have to say that the Beslan incident is worse. It doesnt excuse the US government action in Waco though
2007-11-08 00:37:58 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
I would say it was the Branch Dividians fault when they machine gunned Federal Agents serving a lawful warrant. The Branch Dividians were given many opportunities to let the women and kids out of the compound. They were given many opportunities to surrender. They refused every single one. Law Enforcement didn't use weapons against the Branch Dividians that were banned by the Geneva Convention. The Branch Dividians committed suicide by putting the kids in buried school bus, dousing the entire compound with gasoline and lighting it up. Personally, I think it was poorly handled. The government should have just given the warrant to local law enforcement and arrested sundry Branch Dividians when they came into town. But, Bill Clinton didn't make those decisions. The ATF and, ultimately, Janet Reno did. I have never heard any government official express any pride about the mass suicide at the Branch Dividian compound. However, it was the lunacy of David Koresh that caused the mass suicide at Waco. He bears the blame. May God have mercy on his soul.
2016-05-28 09:58:35 · answer #2 · answered by antoinette 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Both are dispicable, but add them to the Hillarious suporters that want to forget Waco and return a Clinton political machine to the White House.
PS Monk, your just plain wrong on this one. There was plenty of hot lead fired off at Waco when Reno's gurillas tried to storm the place gunfire was exchanged by both sides and a federal tank hit the house resulting in the standoff after Clinton's goons realized there was to be plenty of bloodshed, on their side, if they didn't stop.
2007-11-08 00:43:39 · answer #3 · answered by ? 6 · 2⤊ 4⤋
If Clinton is elected, she must allow qualified citizens to possess guns for protection rather than allowing the criminals to have guns in the society.
VOTE for your choice as US President on my 360 degrees blog and know if Hillary will likely win.
2007-11-08 01:06:37 · answer #4 · answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Both are equally disgusting
In both cases the result was cold blooded murder. Something Clinton is no stranger to.
"wasnt a shot fired at Waco"
Only grenades launched by Renos goon( which she later lied under oath about) that set the compound on fire killing the people inside.
2007-11-08 00:36:47 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 4⤋
Get your facts staight try the library before starting rumors like your buddies bush/cheney
2007-11-08 00:52:38 · answer #6 · answered by joyce s 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Waco was a wacko's fault, not the government. You can lay the blame on Koresh. I guess you feel sorry for Timothy Mc Veigh too?
2007-11-08 00:45:20 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 4⤋
There isn't any answer that could justify either one of these offenses. The unnecessary deaths of children sickens and disgusts anyone.
2007-11-08 00:39:47 · answer #8 · answered by katydid 7 · 5⤊ 1⤋
Both are tragedies, and so are equally horrible.
In terms of sheer murderous intent, Beselan was an abhorrent event.
How many women and children have our cluster bombs killed in Iraq, do you suppose?
2007-11-08 00:42:03 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
As I recall, there was not a single shot fired at waco.
2007-11-08 00:38:07 · answer #10 · answered by Monk 4 · 2⤊ 4⤋