From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@www.aeiveos.com)
Date: Sat Sep 11 1999 - 23:29:41 MDT
On Sat, 11 Sep 1999, Ian Goddard wrote:
> >
> >Spike points out the fundamental problem with
> >a conspiracy theory. You have to guarantee that
> >nobody will *ever* decide they made a mistake
> >and talk about it. You could never guarantee
> >that with the number of agents that were involved
> >at Waco.
>
>
> IAN: You could guarantee that destroying
> the building and killing witnesses will
> destroy the evidence of the aerial attack
> on the first day and silence witnesses.
It silences the *VICTIMS*, it does not silence
the witnesses who participated in the actions!
>
> Of course I'm just saying things you have not
> yourself taken the time to study.
No, you are right, I haven't taken the time to
study it. When the coroners re-examinations
come in, and if they show evidence that the
people died of bullet wounds from ATF guns,
then it would be interesting to spend some time on it.
But, you still haven't addressed my fundamental points
(1) Why would the government create a conspiricy
involving dozens or hundreds of individuals
to commit mass murder?
(2) How would they hope to protect such an action
from exposure?
If you can't make that case, you have putative
"evidence", but no "motive", so that makes your
case very weak.
> It would be good to rent "Waco: The Rules of Engagement"
> from Blockbuster or Tower Video.
If I had lots of time or interest in (a) dead victims;
or (b) people who will likely die anyway (e.g.
non-transhumanist ATF agents); or (c) organizations
that will become largely obsolete in post-nanotech
world (e.g. governments), then I would go do this.
But my impression of your agenda and my comments
on your agenda is that they are much ado about nothing.
> BTW, it just won the Emmy Award for investigative
> journalism, stated last night on Dateline.
Oh, that's great -- "investigative journalism" which
in today's environment = "sensationalistic rumor
spreading", should be accepted as "authoritative
fact". In case you haven't noticed, these programs
have advertisements (and even on PBS they require
public contributions) -- they have to get ratings
and nothing sells like "government conspiracy".
What -- the government can have a conspiracy to kill
people but the reporters can't have a conspiracy to
boost their ratings?
If you think TV reporting is unbiased, you should
investigate their failure to cover efforts by members
of Congress to increase the prices charged for channel
allocations during the HDTV changeover. It is in the
networks interest to work against any increases in the
prices the FCC charges for these channels. The local
network affiliates are getting these channels for
*free* compared with the prices for cell phone channels
and other communications bandwidths that have recently
been auctioned off for. Networks acting in the public
interest!?! Schhhhh, don't tell anyone, but do you know
there is a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow?
BTW, you still haven't addressed my earlier point that
the entire film could have been extensively modified.
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:05:07 MST