On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 09:30:25PM -0500, Jim Choate wrote:

On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Michael Motyka wrote:

...

a greal deal of pain for some plain folks

The folks who worked at the federal building were far from 'plain' folks. It isn't like they walked into a corner grocery.

On the sympathetic side: there was a child care facility there too, and for the children, it *was* like they walked into a grocery or other place they shouldn't have needed to fear. On the cynical side: maybe the feds shouldn't be putting child care facilities in potential terrorist targets. (Really cynical: maybe it was intended as a human shield.)

In addition, the plain fact is there is a considerable underground movement in this country today which is in direct and potentialy violent opposition to this countries current political infra-structure.

I'm distrustful of the government enough to think that most reports and statistics about such groups are greatly exaggerated. After all, what better basis do the feds et al. have for increased surveillance, bigger budgets, and laws that limit privacy?

Ask yourself this, how could a fugitive who is wanted for several bombings stay un-found for four years? He certainly isn't working by himself and there is considerable funding available clearly.

Yes, obvious funding and underground support. But I also take this as a good indication that in spite of how difficult it is to withdraw from society's radar entirely (e.g., get no mail, no driver's license, no social security records, etc.), some people can do it well enough so they can't be easily found. Or maybe law enforcement is simply incompetent, and everyone from Blockbuster Video to Home Depot can tell you everything you might want to know about 90% of adults in the US. -- Greg

He of the CDR tag wrote:

...

On the cynical side: maybe the feds shouldn't be putting child care facilities in potential terrorist targets. (Really cynical: maybe it was intended as a human shield.)

Their own kids? That level of cold blooded-ness is probably unrealistic.

It is quite likely that the people in position to make that decision did not have their own children in that facility. -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ********************************************** Sometimes it is said that man can not be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question. -- Thomas Jefferson, 1st Inaugural

On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Jim Choate wrote:

A *federal* child care facility. What knuckle-head ok'ed putting a child care facility in the same building as several federal LEA headquarters? And what sort of parent would want to put their child there...?

Sheeple, who don't think defensively. Even for their kids oh, don't get me wrong, a convicted child molester moving into town, or maybe an 'obscene' website, they'll scream about -- but they don't think about real danger Some years ago, in a Northern Virginia neighborhood that I lived near, a group of theives went down the street at night and tried to open car doors, when they found one that was unlocked they looted it. Amoung their take were several handguns. What boggled me at the time was that if someone was paranoid/intelligent enough to carry a gun, why weren't they paranoid/intelligent enough to lock the damn car door at night? The answer that eluded me at the time was that intelligence and paranoia are two different things, and paranoia without intelligence is dangerous. And americans seem to be lacking in intelligence

Their own kids? That level of cold blooded-ness is probably unrealistic.

This would probably have not been a decision made by the parents of the kids in question. Most sheeple aren't that intelligent or cold-blooded. Ph.

On Wed, 13 Sep 2000, Jim Choate wrote:

So your claim is that when the FBI, BATF, etc. moved into that building not a single one of them actualy executed on the required threat plan? And during the execution of that plan nobody noticed the child care center or considered the impact of an attack on them?

I didn't say that the FBI, BATF or anyone else has (during the OK city bombing or at any time) actually used such a facility as a human sheild. I was pointing out that it was possible, that parents could easily be shepherded into using such a facility for child care and that the cold-bloodedness possible certainly does exist, just not in the parents of the children (who are/were/would be ignorant of such uses of the very convenient on site child care)

I don't believe anyone was forced to house their child in that center.

It doesn't require force X (official/officer/etc in position of power) decides that a childcare facility would make an excellent 'human sheild' in place Y. X then makes arrangements for decent child care facility, tells parents who work at Y 'Look. Your children can be near you, you can visit them at lunch time, you can drop them off and pick them up on your way in and out of the office respectively, and if something happens [in the normal sense -- kid falls off monkey bars and breaks arm sort of things] you'll be right there' No force necessary. Parents think they have a good deal. X thinks he has a good deal. Kids are up shit creek if anything actually goes down. And no, I'm not arguing this did, has or is happening. I'm not in a position to have data on that. I'm arguing that, contrary to what you said, it *is* a viable possibility. Ph.

At 04:16 PM 9/13/00 +0000, Phaedrus wrote:

Sheeple, who don't think defensively. Even for their kids

oh, don't get me wrong, a convicted child molester moving into town, or maybe an 'obscene' website, they'll scream about -- but they don't think about real danger

For example, 90% of sheeple send their children to government mind destruction facilities to have their minds destroyed. You may have seen ads which show mothers driving their innocents to these institutions in Volvos (supposedly because they want to keep them safe). Better they should drive their kids in old VW Beetles and keep them away from facilities designed to brain damage their offspring. DCF ---- "I wake up every morning worrying about your children" -- Bill Clinton (1992). I sincerely hope not because if he does worry about my children he might feel compelled to do something about them and the resulting fire fight would cause significant collateral damage in the neighborhood.

On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, petro wrote:

...

Ask yourself this, how could a fugitive who is wanted for several bombings stay un-found for four years? He certainly isn't working by himself and there is considerable funding available clearly.

The system is structured to catch criminals using the same "MO" and stupid people (often one in the same).

If it was only that simple. There is no indication the guy was a rocket scientist. He is a bomber who was bombing for a 'cause'. We are not talking a simple bank robber using some dynamite expeditiously. We're talking cold, calculating, confident. ____________________________________________________________________ He is able who thinks he is able. Buddha The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------