In article <C5sIrA.pEw@hawnews.watson.ibm.com>, strom@watson.ibm.com (Rob Strom) writes:  |>In article <C5sEGz.Mwr@dscomsa.desy.de>, hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes: |> |>|>  |>|> In order to reject the word of the FBI and BATF it is neccessary to beleive |>|> the words of a man who has just murdered 17 children and ordered the  |>|> suicide/murder of his other 80 followers. According to the account given |>|> the BATF attempted to serve a warrant upon Koresh at the ranch and were met |>|> by gunfire in a deliberate attempt to murder them. The Koresh/gun supporter |>|> claim that the BATF started shooting simply does not stand up. If the  |>|> AFT had gone there to start shooting they would have gone with heavier |>|> grade weaponry than standard issue handguns. For all practical purposes |>|> they were unarmed, the B-D followers had automatic weapons. |>|>  |>... |>|> The people who do not want gun control must obviously discount the entire |>|> government story. This is simply rationalisation. It is not enough for  |>|> them to simply dismiss the government as incompetent. That would require |>|> them to come up with a solution themselves. Instead they have to come |>|> up with a government conspiracy theory whereby the government decided to |>|> set out to murder 80 people just to set up some sort of scare to alow them |>|> to get gun control legislation through. |>|>  |> |>I must object to the characterization of those opposed to the |>government's handling of the Waco situation as "gun supporters". |>Your argument tries to paint the BATF critics as right-wing |>gun nuts, and just mixes up two issues. |> |>I am one of the BATF/FBI critics, and yet I am a liberal |>and just as anti-gun as you are.  I just happen to believe |>that everyone has civil rights, even religious crazies. |>They're all human beings, not some nest of wasps that |>you're trying to exterminate. |> |>The BATF created the crisis situation by the way they handled |>the original raid.  It was well known that Koresh regularly |>went jogging outside his property.  He could have been served |>with a search warrant then.  He could have been arrested if |>he had refused to comply.  Instead officers armed with grenades |>invaded the property.  This escalated into a shooting war |>with tragic deaths on both sides. |> |>Those were the first two mistakes:  the bad judgment of |>asking for a no-knock warrant, and the bad and probably |>illegal way the already-unwise warrant was served. |> |>At this point, the situation escalated to where it was |>described as an armed standoff and a hostage crisis. |>That's when the government started covering their traces, |>sealing the warrant, revising their reported history of |>the incident, etc. |> |>Things were already building up to disaster.  Now the |>government could have simply closed the supply routes |>and waited.  But according to Janet Reno, that option |>had "never been seriously considered".  So, supposedly |>because the agents were "frustrated and fatigued", and |>because there supposedly were no backups, they felt |>they had to go in.  Yes the govt handled it in the Rambo Hollywood type style with extreeme Machismo. Perhaps thats not the way to handle it.   It is a completely different thing to start asserting as many have done that the government is primarily to blame. The comparisons with the NAZIs in particular are purely gratuitous.  Since you have provided a constructive opinion on the issue your post desreves to be taken seriously. Peter Nelson also made some very good points about how a low key approach might have been  more effective.  The point is though that you learn through mistakes. The govt played the wrong card and lost. Thats not a big deal. They had had four guys murdered at the begining and maybee they  just were not prepared for wuite this situation. Who could be?  If the same thing were to happen all over again we might perhaps be able to castigate the Govt if they used the same tactics and failed in the same way. As it is I can't say that I would not have made the same mistake. Maybee I wouldn't because I don't as a rule go in for a confrontational situation if I can avoid it. Maybee I would because with all those press about its very difficult not to try the macho stuff.   The FBI had information from within the compound we had no access to. They may have calculated that the B-D followers resolve was cracking based on their listening devices within the compound. They knew that Koresh had chickened out of one suicide attempt. This may have been the reason why they considered that fear might have  been a weapon for breaking his resolve. Again in Panama they had used the heavy rock music to great effect during Bush's invasion. Funny that few of the Koresh supporters and appologists complain much about the death of several thousand Pananmanian civilians while the US govt attempted to arrest their former ally.   |>And please let's not turn this into a pro-gun vs. anti-gun |>discussion.  Anti-gun people do not believe that gun-owners |>deserve to get frontally assaulted by armed government |>agents.  And Koresh's civil rights exist whether his |>guns were legal, illegal, illegal-but-should-have-been-legal, |>or whatever!   Koresh negated his civil rights the minute his followers fired on the police helicopter. No matter whether the warrant was or was not technically valid the guys who were carrying it out  thought that it was. Thus the assault on them was completely inexcusable no matter what rationalisation people might wish to employ.  Of course we have to consider the guns issue. That is the whole core of the question. Everything else is a diversion.