179066

神经网络昆斯林的新闻组分类2006

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!sdd.hp.com!apollo.hp.com!netnews
From: [e-mail] (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Waco
Sender: [e-mail] (Usenet News)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1993 14:54:56 GMT
Distribution: usa
References: <[e-mail]>
Nntp-Posting-Host: c.ch.apollo.hp.com
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA
Lines: 64

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (david.d.nason) writes:

>Thirdly, it seems incredibly hypocritical to place blame given
>the benefit of hindsight - something that those who made the
>decisions did not have the benefit of.  Why not give them the courtesy
>of acknowledging that they did the best they could with the
>data they had - in a very, very difficult situation.

  What is your proof that they "did the best they could"?   Unless
  they had strong evidence that the children were in IMMEDIATE danger
  then "the best they could" have done was to SHOW RESTRAINT.

  Some of us DID predict this outcome, or at least suggested a
  strong possibility of it.  I, for one, said that in the event of
  an assault against the building the CHILDREN were the ones in danger
  either from the assault itself or from a "Jonestown" (my phrase
  a week after the seige started) style suicide.  And as I pointed
  out then, and repeatedly over the objections of people on the net 
  who disagreed with me, an adult may freely choose suicide but they
  have no right to impose this choice on their children.

  Now, while I don't expect the FBI to pay any attention to what I 
  have to say on this, I *DO* expect them to figure it out on their
  own or to take the advice of experts.  The cult specialist inter-
  viewed in yesterday's Boston Globe said he was repeatedly "stonewalled"
  by the FBI when he pointed out to them that their confrontational
  tactics played perfectly into Koresh's mad view of the world and so 
  increased the chance of a tragic outcome.

>Some responses have gone so far to suggest that the actions were
>done without regard for the lives of the people in the compound - give
>me a break.

  Give *US* a break!   Pumping teargas for 45 minutes into a compound 
  filled with CHILDREN?!!   This doesn't seem to show much regard for 
  their lives or safety.   "Nontoxic teargas" is an oxymoron.  Children
  have tiny respiratory passages which are easily blocked by the secretions
  induced by teargas; moreover teargas can easily cause fatalities in anyone
  subject to laryngospasms, asthma, or heart disease.

  If a madman is holding a gun to a hostage, someone who provokes the 
  madman by attacking him bears nearly as much repsonsibility for the
  death of the hostage as the madman himself.  These kinds of situations
  have to be handled *delicately* - not by surrounding a place with
  tanks and heavily armed personnel and blaring rock music from loud-
  speakers at all hours.   That approach is idiotic.  


>Be part of the solution - not the problem.

  The solution is to greatly reduce the authority of the "the authorities".
  The Feds showed themselves here, as they have so many times in the
  past, to be a gang of trigger-happy, impulsive, yahoos who cause more
  trouble than they prevent.    Their confrontational approach reinforced
  every single message Koresh was giving his followers, virtually guarantee-
  ing that whatever crazy solution Koresh proposed would be followed
  willingly.   This was pointed out here, on Compuserve, in the press,
  just about every place except in the Justice Department where it seems
  a n.i.h. philosophy prevails.  
  
          
---peter