Mephisto2

This is all very interesting Daswig. And I'm hoping the emotion you are showing on this topic is due to strongly felt beliefs and not targetted at me.

You bring up some very interesting issues. However, I think you misundestood me and the topic (or concept if you will) that I'm trying to tease out.

I'm not arguing whether the attack was legal or illegal. You know more about that than I do. I would hazard a guess that if it was illegal then some heads would have rolled, but that's another issue.

What I'm getting at, and what you say yourself, is that their actions in the compound have no relevance whatsoever on the legal basis the authorities used to justify the ending of the siege. Conversely, the fact that they were (perhaps) assaulted on dubious grounds does not justify their actions in the compound. Hypothetically speaking, just because they were attacked illegally does not make their illegal actions, PRIOR TO THE ATTACK legal or defensible.

Maybe I'm splitting hairs. Anyway, that's what I meant when I asked if you were defending them. I'll repeat what I said earlier. By all means criticise the authorities, but don't support "child molesters" and "killers".

There's no reason to be a smart-ass. Why can't you return the respect and maturity shown to you?

Well, my memory tells me it was David Koresh who was the person the "escaped" accused, so how could he be convicted?

That's fair enough. But that statement implies that the law enforcement agencies went ahead with the expressly formulated goal of killing those inside. "With malice aforethought" I believe is the US legal term? Do you honestly believe that?

I'm just curious.


Mr Mephisto