I'm sure you've heard the phrase 'figures don't lie, but liars figure.' You may also be familiar with the old quote about 'lies, damned lies, and statistics'. Facts work the same way.
The Aes Sedai in Wheel of Time come to mind -- they are magically rendered truly incapable of 'telling a lie', but they are also extremely skilled at arranging truths for the purpose of obfuscation or deception. There are multiple characters in fiction and folklore -- across multiple cultures -- who use this technique, with various motivations and results. And unfortunately, there are plenty of real life people who use this technique as well, although in the real world people are a little less rigorous about ensuring the veracity of their facts.
There are several things here. Some you have already mentioned. Given the poster's history, the mod staff has no reason to assume good faith.
Context matters. AstralRunner's post is a response to another poster talking about how Ruby Ridge was the government "coming down hard on right wing groups" and how it led to a rise in recruitment for various right-wing militias and since then the US government has avoided the massive and unconstitutional violence like at Ruby Ridge (avoided it if the people are white and conservative, anyway). Since the concern here appears to be truth, it is important to note that the poster being replied to is factually correct. From the moderating team's perspective, there is nothing disingenuous about Count Zero's post.
AstralRunner then charges in and accuses the poster of "divisive, pro-police propaganda" and repeating the "government's logic". The latter complaint is, frankly, nonsensical. Yes, of course that was the logic used to justify the abuses. That the feds engaged in flagrant abuses of power does not in any way negate that the target of those flagrant abuses was a target because he was a far right extremist. That second bit is the reason Ruby Ridge became such a wellspring of right-wing-talking points.
Describing the post as "divisive" is a red flag here. That is the same terminology currently being used to ban books about segregation and other abuses against people of color. "Pro-police propoganda" doesn't make sense as the post being responded to is about the aftereffects of siege and why the government doesn't do that any more (although again, that only applies for white conservatives).
AR is specifically responding to a post speculating about why the feds stopped coming down hard on right wing extremists with a post that seems to be arguing either that Randy Weaver wasn't targeted for being a right wing extremist (he was) or arguing that the government didn't end up coming down hard on them (they did, but they got in trouble for it afterward). That framing is the problem. It turns out you don't "gotta hand it to them".
The entire post is a bad-faith attempt to derail the conversation. The modstaff is under no obligation to treat it as anything other than that. People who are worried about the prison conditions of Jan. 6th insurrections do not actually care about general prison conditions. "Free Speech" advocates who are also cheering bans on "CRT" are not actually in favor of freedom of speech. This is no different.
This post would have gotten some level of moderation even without the context of previous infractions.
Ninety Day Ban