roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:  >In article <C5rrot.MMM@rice.edu> fontenot@ravl.rice.edu (Dwayne Jacques Fontenot) writes: >>In article <C5rpoJ.IJv@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes: >>>In article <1993Apr19.184303.6205@stortek.com> vojak@icebucket.stortek.com (Bill Vojak) writes: >>>> >>>  [...] >>>> 5) Point out that even if the fire was set by someone inside of the >>>>    building, it came as a direct result of the actions of the FBI/BATF. >>>>    And the people inside (including 17 children) deserved a trial, instead >>>>    of this. >>> >>>Well they had over 40 days to come out with their hands up on national tv  >>>to get the trial they deserved.  Instead they chose to set fire to their  >>>compund hours after the tanks dropped off the tear gas. >> >>Correction: The FBI says that the Davidians set fire to their buildings.  >And I suppose the FBI also prevented them from coming out with their  >hands up while national tv cameras watch.  Well the attorneys of the Davidians reported on Larry King that the tanks had actually damaged the structure to the extent that effectuating egress from the building was difficult at best. With a rapidly spreading fire and large amounts of smoke and tear gas, finding the right exits, or acceptible holes in the walls were nearly impossible.  I find this explanation to be completely  plausible.  Doesn't mean that it's true, but I don't find it intrinsically less believable than the government stories.  >>The FBI also said that the Davidians had a methanphetamine lab in their >>basement and that the Davidians had .50 cal machine guns. >> >>Do you believe everything the FBI says?   >Do you disbelieve everything the FBI says? >I balance my gut reaction to question authority together with the  >independent facts as I see them on video.  I usually adopt the  >scenario that is simplest and most plausible.  I do not generally  >believe in conspiracy theories that involve complicated and unlikely  >scenarios.  I concur.  >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.  Indeed.  According to the lawyers, the Davidian survivors say that lanterns were knocked over during the "probing" and that's how the fire started.  A tragic accident, if true.  >>Do you trust that snivelling little >>piece of sh*t special agent Ricks? He seems to think he is a comedian, and >>the media who laugh at his sick jokes are just as guilty as he, IMHO. >> >>>Up until now the BATF had been making me sick.  Today the people inside  >>>the compound who set the fire made me sick.  Keeping the children inside  >>>the compund when they should have been released earlier with the other  >>>people weeks ago is absolutely inexcuseable.  Not releasing them before  >>>deciding to set the place afire is the work of madmen. >>> >>>Two of the nine who escaped the compound said the fire was deliberately set  >>>by cult members. >> >>Correction: The FBI says that two of the nine said the fire was deliberately >>set by the sect members.  >If the fire were set by accident or by people outside the compound, I would  >have expected far more cult members to flee the compound.  Or at least come  >out shooting.  See above.  This one is going to be thoroughly investigated.  Maybe we'll eventually get some idea of what happened.  My view is that, from beginning to end, this operation was a botch and that it is completely possible that nut cases who were otherwise law-abiding citizens were victims of a bureaucratic execution. --  paul hager		hagerp@moose.cs.indiana.edu