In article <C5tLxr.1xq@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)   writes: > In article <1r21g2INNeah@clem.handheld.com> jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De   Arras) writes: > >In article <C5sou8.LnB@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)   > >writes: > >> In article <1993Apr20.163730.16128@guinness.idbsu.edu>   betz@gozer.idbsu.edu   > >(Andrew Betz) writes: > >> >In article <C5rynw.Iz8@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)   > >writes: > >> >>And I suppose the FBI also prevented them from coming out with their  > >> >>hands up while national tv cameras watch. > >> >> > >> >Watch from where?  Two miles away?  Far enough away that whatever > >> >really happenned must be explained through the vengeful filter of > >> >a humiliated agency that said (quote!) "Enough is enough." > >>  > >> Please tell me what you think would have happened had the people  > >> come out with their hands up several weeks ago. > >>  > >It didn't happen. >  > And who is responsible for it not happening? > Certainly not the children.  Koresh was calling the shots.  He was  > talking with his lawyer and the FBI.  Since others were released safely,  > there is no sane reason for keeping the children inside the compound. >   The FBI and Koresh were calling the shots.  And there were very sane reasons   for keeping the children, if they let them go, the parents would NEVER see them   again.  That is not an easy choice, in spite of you cold attitude about it.  > >> >>scenario that is simplest and most plausible.  I do not generally  > >> >>believe in conspiracy theories that involve complicated and unlikely  > >> >>scenarios. > >> > > >> >The FBI sent letters to Martin Luther King's wife insinuating > >> >that MLK was having an affair!  Again, please tell us exactly > >> >how much you trust our supposedly benevolent government. > >>  > >> More than someone who would not release children from the compound. > >>  > >Obviously.  You are an authority worshiper. >  > Not at all.  Are you a Koresh worshiper?  I am a constitution worshiper.  You quite obviously eat anything the   authorities feed you, without doubt, which makes you no different that a Koresh   worshiper  >  > >> I.e., more than David Koresh/Vernon Howell/"Jesus Christ". > >> I saw lengthy excerpts from an Australian documentary made in  > >> 1992 that clearly showed that this was a cult. > > > >Give me a camera, and time with you, and I can present excerpts that show   you   > >to be a cult leader.  Guarenteed.  >  > Thanks for my laugh of the day!  Definitely a very silly supposition. >  If you do not believe this, you are truly naive.  It is not only possible, it   is easy.  I worked in the broadcast profession, at a network station, in the   late 70s, I know what I'm saying here.  Embarrasing footage is easy to get, add   a little sinister music, and the right voice-over, and I'll have you mother   agreeing to commit you.  > >You should at least view the whole   > >documentary before you claim it as a source. >  > I would if I could.  The news show that showed the lengthy excerpts also  > had interviews with the filmmaker who made the documentary who basically  > confirmed what was shown in the excerpts from the time he spent at the  > compound in 1992. >  The news shows were looking for excerpts which backed their position.  Do you   think they would show excerpts which disproved their points?  > >> I am not pleased with the BATF handling of the affair.  I think they  > >> bungled it badly from the start.  But I don't think they are  > >> responsible for the fire, which started in two different places. > > > >Two places, eh?  You saw this?  Or did the wonderful FBI tell you this?   > >I saw one place. >  > I believe that this was reported by local radio reporters on site. > A fire started in a three story tower at the same time as the two  > story window shown on the tv coverage. >  The reports of multi-starts came solely from the FBI.  Anyone observing the   fire from the available video would be hard pressed to see more than one point   of fire.  Which spread across the compound as a uniform rate.  > >> >>The BATF is by no means devoid of fault in the handling of this affair. > >> >>But to suggest that they may have intentionally started the fire is  > >> >>ludicrous. > >> > > >> >I suspect that there were plenty of camerapeople willing to > >> >risk small arms fire to get some good footage.  These people > >> >were told to get the hell out of camera range.  Why? > > > >Couldn't answer this one, eh?  This is the most important question of all,   it   > >is the root cause of all the other suspicion. >  > I thought about mentioning how Reagan and the military treated the press  > in Grenada and how that set the precedent, but decided it wasn't worthy  > of discussion.  If the news reporter got shot, you can bet his family  > would sue the government for letting him into the danger area.  No reported has ever sued the government for such a situation.  They know the   dangers.  Remember, the BATF invited the initial coverage. And how about a   simple, remote-controlled, camera or two?  There were ways to provide media   access.  The FBI obviously just didn't want any.  >  > The root cause of suspicion in my mind is why 100 people wouldn't flee  > a building that had numerous exits during the 30 minutes time it took  > to burn down.  Or why didn't they flee hours earlier when the tear gas was  > first introduced?  I can find no rational explanation for their behavior. >  I can find several.  Tear gas and smoke making it impossible to remove the   barricades.  Flames blocking exits to the saferooms. Perhaps the gun shots were   from the FBI, keeping them pinned in?  Who knows?  > --  >   Jim -- jmd@handheld.com