Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : The Truth about Waco -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Merritt who wrote (864)	9/12/1999 3:55:00 AM
From: chalu2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1449

Yes, Antietam (Sharpsburg) was a bloody day, and I do recall it as being on union soil (Maryland, if I'm not mistaken). But where is the misdirection? You may not think the historical analogy is perfect, but no one should hold Koresh blameless. I think there is a secret government policy here, but not the one conspiracy theorists generally espouse. Consider this: Governments over the past 30-40 years have been faced with many hostage-taking situations. Negotiations may lead to the safe release of all hostages. But maybe not. Then what? We now have a Hobson's choice: storm the holdout risking the lives of the hostages, or give up the attempt to apprehend the captors. No legitimate government can relinquish the attempt to take a lawbreaker into custody. So, we ask ourselves (think like law enforcement for a minute),what happens when we have a captor/lawbreaker, we have a hostage situation, and we have failed negotiations. Let's add to the mix that the standoff can naturally continue indefinitely. Is it possible that some said this: The principle that the government will apprehend lawbreakers regardless of whether they take hostages is more important than the lives of the hostages?. I think this is a policy some governments do adopt in these situations. I am not advocating it, because I cannot stomach the thought of sacrificing a bunch of innocent children to what is perceived to be a "greater good"--i.e., showing perceived criminals that taking hostages will avail them nothing. That's a hard policy. But is it possible--or even likely--that this type of thinking holds the key to what happened at Waco?????