What Can the Thirtieth Anniversary of the Waco Siege Tell Us About What We Are Facing Today?
This year marks the thirtieth anniversary of the 1993 Waco, Texas siege, which was a tragedy all around; and the reason for the federal government’s raid was because of rumors of illegal guns being hoarded at the Mount Carmel compound in Axtell, Texas (outside of Waco). Yes, a militarized police army invaded the seventy-seven-acre Branch Davidian property and killed men, women, and children over a few guns being stored, and any “bleeding-heart liberal” who suggests that the raid was justified needs to reexamine his or her morality and principles (if it is wrong to raid homes for drugs, surely it is wrong to do so for guns). The Biden administration and several states are attempting to replace one war against inanimate objects with another (focus shifting from drugs to guns), and if the War on Guns escalates to the point of sending armed soldiers to confiscate weapons, this will be deadlier overall than what happened near Waco.
So, what happened at Waco? The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) wanted to tread on Mount Carmel because it may have had a stash of 250 rifles, shotguns, pistols, and grenades; and some reports (based on “circumstantial evidence”) suggested that members of the compound were illegally converting semi-automatic weapons into fully-automatic ones (“illegally” as in they did not pay their government fees for the conversions) and making explosive devices. Because of these restrictive and unjustified regulations, a federal warrant was issued, and the deaths piled up as a result.
The February 28 raid started small with eighty ATF agents invading the property. A ceasefire was called after four agents and six Davidians were killed, but this halting of hostilities only allowed the government to call in a larger raiding force of 900 law enforcement agents and sixteen tanks (including two Abrams tanks). The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) then took control of the situation and attempted to negotiate with leader David Koresh, and this included 117 conversations taking place over sixty hours (the negotiations centered around using religious scholars and the Book of Revelation and Biblical prophecy). This led to possibly forty-four people (or at least twenty-one children) being released in exchange for food (the number of released individuals is different depending on sources). However, the situation then grew out of hand.
On April 19, the FBI sent in two modified battle tanks to breach the compound and spray 400 containers of CS tear gas, resulting in fires that engulfed the land and killed several people. Gun fire exchange could then be heard throughout the property. There is an unresolved debate about whether government agents started the fires, or the Davidians committed suicide by arson at three locations. Congress “settled” the issue by releasing a report showing that the Davidians were the culprits, but according to one of the survivors from inside the compound, David Thibodeau, it was the FBI that ignited the flames. Additionally, it was later revealed that the tear gas used by the FBI was flammable. Did the FBI intentionally use this type of gas to start the fire, playing it off as an accident, or was it really an accident? The government cannot admit to the incineration of the compound, either way, because if it did, this would be considered a war crime.
In the end, eighty-two Davidians, including twenty-five children and the six from earlier in the standoff, died in a massacre that should not have been (nine people survived). For fifty-two days, the government violated the property rights of the Davidians and invaded the land with militarized units over gun laws that the federal government had no right to enforce. Even if the Davidians started the fires, the government should not have sent a small army to conquer the territory. Why did the ATF and FBI need to surround the compound when they could have simply arrested Koresh and others on the gun charges and left the women and children out of it? Was it to make a statement? Did both agencies need a raise in government funding and a reason to stay relevant? Well, regardless of the reasons, the Waco incident had consequences that would later be felt. We are still dealing with the aftermath of it.
The 1980s and 1990s saw an increase in enforcement under the War on Drugs, and with this, police departments and agencies became militarized, with local forces relying more on special weapons and tactics (SWAT) teams and other highly-armed agencies. As a result of the militarization of the police, many civilians, who saw this as a threat, became more heavily armed. If the police were going to have assault rifles and tanks, why would people not want to match their capabilities, just in case an out-of-control or tyrannical government attempted to invade their property? It was during this period of contention that the Waco siege occurred, and Timothy McVeigh was inspired to commit the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing because of what had occurred at Waco and at Randy Weaver’s Idaho property in the 1992 Ruby Ridge standoff. The assailants in the 1999 Columbine High School massacre chose the fourth anniversary of McVeigh’s attack and the sixth anniversary of the Waco siege to commit their heinous act (they wanted to beat McVeigh’s death count).
The Columbine shooting inspired a whole new series of mass shootings across the country, and if the Reagan, Bush (George H. W.), and Clinton administrations had not been so aggressive in their approach to drugs and guns, it seems less likely that there would be the sort of devastating attacks on schools and other vulnerable facilities that we now see. Governments create policies that lead to more incidents, and then after they come in with the "solution" of crackdowns on the entire population, violence increases, all in an endless cycle. Of course, could some of these events also be a result of CIA MK-Ultra-type of mind control experimentation or FBI entrapment (like with the Michigan governor kidnapping plot or the possibility of CIA or FBI involvement in the Oklahoma City bombing)?
Instead of looking at history, the copycat effect, existing government policies, mental health, data on the types of weapons used in homicides, how the vast majority of gun owners are responsible and have a right to uninfringed self-defense, how most mass shootings occur in gun-free zones, and the specific details of each event; the Left prefers to use emotional responses and cherry-picked data as a basis for stripping away our gun rights and choice of weapons. Ultimately, it has to gradually condition society to hate firearms and to allow for more draconian laws. Make no mistake, though, politicians are coming for our guns, one way or another, despite what they say in public debates. Is the government encouraging Waco- or Columbine- type events in order to manipulate public sentiment against guns? I better be careful here. I do not want to be Alex Jonesed.
Speaking of the devil, also out of the Waco fiasco arose Alex Jones and the alternative media that has brought about a federal response to so-called “misinformation” and the impending “threat” to our democracy, including the January 6, 2021 Capitol “insurrection.” Now, the government looks to censorship in the new War on Information that will inevitably lead to even more violence and distrust of institutions. The events at Waco were the origin of many of the problems and debates we face today, and instead of addressing this, the government wants to create more detrimental policies that lead to a continuing cycle of violence and division. To the federal government, all citizens are a potential threat, and if you speak out or take actions that run contrary to approved narratives, you are an enemy of the state. We no longer have a government that fears the people. This concept has been reversed.
Thank you for reading, and please check out my book, The Global Bully, and website.