🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <pEAU4.8250$LM4.587892@monger.newsread.com>,
  russotto@wanda.vf.pond.com (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
> In article <8fugpp$e8b$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Ivan Zlatnik  <soylentgrn@hotmail.com> wrote:
> }In article <3922a250.2364276@news.ican.net>,
> }  Ivan Gowch <gowch@SPAMMENOThotmail.com> wrote:
> }> ==> And WACO did not have to end that way.
> }>
> }> No argument here, either.  I've never understood why the FBI didn't
> }> simply wait the Waco wackos out.  Their food was going to run out
> }> sooner or later and, as crazy as they were, I doubt if they were
> }> prepared to engage in cannibalism.
> }
> }The FBI did not wait the wackos out becacause
> }
> }1. the feds had a search warrant...it really isn't up to the subject
of
> }the warrant to decide when to comply
>
> The Feds chose the day they got the search warrant.
>
> }2. the BDs had food in there to last a long time...over a year
> So?
>
> }3. from experience, the feds knew that people under siege have a
habit
> }of destroying evidence
>
> Right, they were going to burn the building down and bulldoze the
> remains.
>
> Oh, wait.  That's what the FBI did.
>
> }4. the BDs were led by a man believed to have apocalyptic visions and
> }they would do themselves (and the children) in if left to it
>
> So the FBI burned the children in order to save them.

If you are making the case that the FBI was able to sneak into the
compound, pour the flammable liquids, light the fires, and then sneak
out again, you are giving them a lot of credit.


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.