How the US Government deals with insurrection differs from the way Gaddafi does it.

We are involved in our third concurrent war in the Middle East. Our spoken justification for doing so is to protect the Libyan people from a cruel and vicious assault on those who have taken up arms against the Libyan Government. What would the US Government do if US citizens took up arms in lets say Waco Texas? Well, we know what they did  when the US Government went after  US citizens that  did not take up arms. Waco happened under A liberal Democratic President Bill Clinton. Clinton went after a religious fringe group. Who are the rebels that took up arms in Libya? Are the Libyans justified in putting down an insurrection? What do you think would happen if the Tea Party armed up and took to the streets?

Government Terrorism under Bill Clinton?

Rush Limbaugh blames Oklahoma City bombing on former President Bill Clinton
April 19, 5:01 PMPolitical Buzz ExaminerRyan Witt

Rush Limbaugh went on offense over the Oklahoma City bombing.

Right or wrong, the Oklahoma City bombing has become something of a political football ever since the terrorist attack occurred. Every anniversary a debate emerges as to who was to blame for the attack, and how it could have been prevented.

Last week, former President Bill Clinton lightly brushed upon the subject in a speech before the Center for American Progress. Without specifically mentioning the Oklahoma City bombing, Clinton warned about the danger of right-wing rhetoric in possibly promoting violence. Clinton specifically mentioned Rush Limbaugh's more extreme rants against the Obama administration.

Today, Rush Limbaugh shot back by directly blaming President Clinton for the Oklahoma City bombing. In the video below Limbaugh cites the Waco and Ruby Ridge incidents as "tangible evidence' that Clinton helped to contribute to the Oklahoma City bombing. Under Limbaugh's reasoning Clinton is to blame because of how Waco and Ruby Ridge unfolded. Ironically, Limbaugh's rhetoric actually matches up with that of Timothy McVeigh who also claimed that Waco was the reason for the Oklahoma City bombing.

The real question is not whether Waco and Ruby Ridge served as inspiration for McVeigh in some way (most believe it certainly did), but rather whether Waco and Ruby Ridge serve as a justification for the bombing. Under Limbaugh's theory, McVeigh's actions are somehow excused because of what the government did at Waco.
The Waco raid certainly ended badly, but few doubt that the raid was legal.

Significant evidence existed showing that people within the Waco compound, most notably cult leader David Koresh, were engaged in sexual abuse against minors. They were also accused of illegally stockpiling weapons. The wisdom of how the raid was done and when it was done can be debated. but the government certainly had legal authority to enforce such laws.

And even if the Waco raid was illegal one must question how the raid would justify McVeigh's actions.

The women and children who died in Oklahoma City played absolutely no part in the decision to raid the Waco compound.

The blame for Oklahoma City lies first and foremost with the perpetrator of the crime. McVeigh plotted the crime and carried it through with devastating effectiveness. He was clearly a bit mentally disturbed before the attack, as evidenced by his belief that the army had implanted a chip in his buttocks to track his movements. McVeigh obviously had an anti-government mindset and that may or may not have been contributed to by right-wing talk at the time. Clinton seemed to address this notion with the proper caution by warning generally about the possibility of violence emerging from overly heated rhetoric. Limbaugh, on the other hand, seems to have adopted McVeigh's own justification for the bombing in trying to rebut Clinton's remarks.