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.  >> >>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.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.  >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.  >> 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 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.  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.