To: Sidney Reilly who wrote (17530 ) 6/15/1998 1:31:00 AM From: Grainne Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 39621
Bob, Waco was really horrible. I think if you did a poll of Americans, you would feel that most of them feel exactly the same way. Nothing gets reported very well when it is happening, because there is a lot of confusion, and reporters are just saying what they see, and what they are being told by the authorities. But after Waco there were lots of investigative reporters digging around, and they reported the facts as far as they could dig them out. There was also an award-winning documentary called "Waco", as I recall. Ruby Ridge was not handled very well, either. While Mrs. Weaver was armed, which is not usually reported in the same sentence which describes her carrying her baby, there was no excuse at all for her being shot, and not much for handling it the way it was, in general. Again, there were investigations, and the press dug around and did report the truth as soon as they discovered it. I cannot say that incidents like this will not happen again, because I think the militia movement has all the law enforcement agencies really on the alert now. Killing policemen and bombing Federal buildings and trying to buy anthrax are not activities that result in a mellow, laid-back police presence. But certainly the public, and the press, are very much aware of the excesses which occurred at Waco and Ruby Ridge. You can see from later stand-offs, like the one in Texas, that the BATF and the FBI have been retrained to wait out tense situations when at all possible, instead of polarize them. It seems like you got fixated on these two events, did not observe or acknowledge all the hearings about them, the official and public soul searching, and the new policies of the law enforcement agencies involved, and are determined that this is going to be reality from now on, until the end of time. Sort of like living your whole life based on something someone might have said two thousand years ago in another language, pertaining to a totally different tribal culture, about a guy whose historicity is in question, who worshipped a God who has always been totally invisible. All of these beliefs require such tremendous leaps of faith that in a way it is not surprising that they are all connected. You keep telling me to pay attention to your concept that the "New World Order" is going to massacre all the Christians, and you seem to be getting pretty impatient that I will not buy in to your version of reality. At the same time, my objective analysis of the myriad, chaotic, loosely aligned groups that you consider part of the New World Order--most of them dedicated to environmentalism, vegetarianism, and feeding starving children, and all of them advocating total religious freedom--as harmless falls on deaf ears, because you have taken on a totally paranoid world view. Can you tell me why I should accept your version of the future, when it is not logical? Do you have any respect for mine, or even an open mind? If you do, it is not apparent to me. Since you say that no Christian who reads and understands the Bible is going to engage in criminal activity, doesn't that tell you that the white separatist and militia movements in this country are not really Christian? So why on earth would you swallow their ideology whole? It doesn't seem rational to me. At least the New World Order people are trying to save everyone's lives. Do you see some positive life energy in the militia movement that I am missing or something?