From: Fred Mrozek on October 18, 1999 at 16:47:46:
In Reply to: Rick Ross: raross@home.com. October 18, 1999 at 13:37:14

: Subj: Re: Waco
: Date: 10/18/1999 1:09:20 PM US Mountain Standard Time
: From: raross@home.com (Rick Ross)

:
: Please consider this a response to both your emails. Frankly Fred tends
: to be a bit repetitious and rambles on quite a bit.

Repetitious? I just thought you accidentally
missed the parts where your generalisations
were destroyed by numerous facts. But now I see
ignoring them, or absorbing them at 0.001%
concentration, or glibbly calling premeditated
murder just a "mistake" is the entirety of your
tactics. "Just be cool and professional and
no matter how wrong you are, the appearance
alone will suffice."

: Now we have learned that the FBI suppressed information about flares,
: pyrotechnic devices and quite possibly gunfire, which was probably
: defensive.

Rick, do you see how frustrating it is for me?
I have laid a factual basis laden with documentation
to suggest a pattern of manifestly malicious behavior
on the part of the FBI and you STILL, kneejerk your
way into assuming anything they did was defensive.
"Majesty of the state" again.... They can shot
machine-guns at you on TV and not even be questioned
about it....

I don't see how these facts change the more important larger
: picture we know about Waco.

: That is, as I have said before:

: Koresh broke the law and deserved to be served the warrant--albeit the
: BATF acted stupidly and should have arrested him outside the compound
: and/or secured the area and phoned in for him to surrender.

OK Rick, I'll try one more time. If you concede
that the raid the BATF planned was stupid, what evidence
would you accept to prove to you that the dangerous,
vilent consequences were actually intended? Please
answer this. As a scientific type, you must recognize
that any legitimate theory must be falsifiable and that
any sane adherent of a theory ought to be able to
state a condition or set of facts that would disprove it.
So what evidence would you accept to show that
the lethal and deadly circumstances of the Feb 28th
raid were PLANNED?

How many opportunities to make a correct
decision must I prove the BATf had in order to prove
to you that they were making those decisions
not from stupidity, but by managerial direction?

And if I can show that managerial direction,
will you accept that the deadly consequences were
either planned or were considered an acceptable
result?

And if the latter, are not manslaughter or murder
charges against the managerial layers giving approval
warranted IN SPITE of the knowledge that, for instance,
the Davidians knew they were coming?

If I can show that management always steered
toward the highest risk path, had multiple opportunities
to intervene and reverse the decisions you may have
admitted were "stupid", and if you STILL are blind to
the possibility these people were merely making mistakes...
then your mindset will permit the feds to forever
possess the freedom needed to make decisions
to kill people by design and then label them
either "mistakes" or judgement calls later.

: Koresh was obligated by law to cooperate with the authorities and should
: have worked through the legal system. In the past when he stood trial
: for attempted murder he did this and should have done so once again.

Your cart has jack-knifed and broken your horses legs.

Koresh was calling Harwell to ask what was going on. He
was talking to the agents, trying to convert them and knew
they were agents. Some of the Davidians took a six pack of beer
over to the undercover house and some agent there
reached out and grabbed it, then slammed the door.
And even though I have said it over and over, the
destruction of the BATF videos and William Johnstons
orders to halt the shooting review when the testimony
began to agree with the Davidians claims... ALL
speak to the fact that Koresh came out with his hands
open and empty, trying to talk.
I think your refusal to admit this point, or to discuss
it with me in my numerous attempts to force
you to do so, reveal that your mind is about as closed
as it can be.

The way the BATF operated gave Koresh no way
out of a gun battle that the BATf did everything
to initiate, and nothing to prevent. And the law
and the jury are on the Davidians side.

(I do not know why I am continuing. My repetition
is forced by the illusion that you will react in
a rational manner to my factual presentations and
it is clear i am deluded to think you will do so.)

: The Davidians shot first and even even the Republican report concluded
: this--as did the Texas Rangers. Their initial gunfire was the most
: likely way that exchange began. Subsequently the Davidians were subject
: to lawful arrest.

And Shirer has lots of references to the "fact",
as reported by the NAZI's that the poles had attacked
the German border in 1939. Citing the House report
is manifestly useless since the failings of that report
are the cause of the Danforth and Senatorial inquiries.

But I'll be more blunt. I have given lots of
factual reasons in my other posts to suspect the feds
lied about who fired the first shots. Does it not matter
to you that so much evidence has been destroyed by the
feds that could have settled that question?
The missing front door, the missing BATF audio tapes,
the shooting reviews halted. If any criminal defendent
left a trail like that, the jury would take it as evidence
of guilt. The Waco jury took at as evidence of
the validity of the Davidians self-defense argument.
Keep in mind that Koresh was begging for someone to
obtain tapes of the raid, even as the BATF and FBI did
everything in their power to prevent any such
tapes or testimony from showing anything.

: David Koresh and his followers had 51 days to obey the law and come
: out--they refused, which directly led to a continuation of the standoff
: and its escalation.

Good grief. I have written to man with the attention
or open-mindedness of a corpse.

: David Koresh ordered the fire to be set. Despite Mr. McNulty's latest
: conspiracy theories about the audio tapes--they clearly prove this.

If the FBI taped over the audio tracks in places,
which they did, those places may have provided a key
to the interpretation of those alleged dialogues
that would destroy the interpretations you cite.
You let me tape enough of your conversation,
and then cut and splice it back together again, and I
could make you say about anything.
Add to that a good 20,000 dollar contract
for someone to interpret, "enhance", manipulate,
or creatively interpret, and you have a very dangerous
piece of tape from which to extract anything besides
the distrust that ought be applied to anything the
FBI presents.

The
: FBI did not start the fire either accidentally or deliberately and the
: new facts have not proven otherwise.

Your mind is manifestly unwilling to consider
what the implications are of the machine-gun fire
at the Davidians seen on the thermal imagers.
It would be like having an image of person
X running from place Y with a gun in his hand, finding
your corpse at place Y, and having NO inclination
to investigate the person seen running.

I do not know why I am bothering. It is like talking
to a wall.

: My criteria for a destructive cult is posted at my web site and the
: following links will help you to better understand this:

: http://www.rickross.com/faq.html
: http://www.rickross.com/reference/Art95.html
: http://www.rickross.com/reference/brainwashing1.html

: To some extent I understand your comparison of the FBI to a "cult."

To that extent, begin to consider all the evidences
that this similarity was the foundation which enabled
malicious actions, murderous in their consequences.
"Don't tell Reno about Koreshes promise to come out!"
"Don't tell Reno that we hear him dictating his seals!"
"And if she still is not bucking under the pressures
of our attempt to make her approve our murder plans, tell
her BABIES ARE BEING BEATEN!" "Yea, That'll get her!"

: The FBI in its version of Waco seems to have subordinated
: facts to the primacy of their "spin control."

Oh? Oh? Excuse me while I peal myself off
the floor.

: Likewise, the FBI had a doctrine concerning standoffs, which required
: they use a "hostage/terrorist" response and tactics. This proved totally
: ineffective when dealing with a cult like the Davidians

ROSS. Wake up! You have either lied, or have proven that
you did not read Wright.

They did NOT follow ANY of the rules. They broke
virtually EVERY RULE. You are either ignorant or dishonest
in this reply.

There is every reason to believe the rules
would have worked had they been tried. Every reason
to believe the rules were broken systematically, and every
reason to suspect the FBI's intentions were malicious
in these violations since there is NO OTHER explanation
for the violations.
At this point, I would like to tattoo on your
forehead the texts of the Smerick memoes that told the
FBI that these pressure tactics (violations of the
textbook rules) would drive the event toward a deadly
tragedy. FOUR MEMOES, oh stubborn one! From the
FBI's OWN psychological staff. What does the FBI
DO? They chastise Smerick into changing his advice, then
surprise, surprise - the event moves toward the prediction
of Smerick.... Toward deaths of innocent people to
accompanyment of machine-guns firing at the last possible
exits....
Yes. Lets tattoo that on your forehead, backwards. That
way, even though you will not admit how damaging this
evidence would be in proving malice, you will at least see
it written on your head every morning in the bathroom mirror.

--on this point I
: agree with Stuart Wright.

Good God Man. You have not read Wright!

You said this above:

":the FBI had a doctrine concerning standoffs, which required
: they use a "hostage/terrorist" response and tactics. This proved totally
: ineffective when dealing with a cult like the Davidians."

THEY did no such thing. They DID NOT USE any protocol as anything
BUT the instruction, which when precisely and sequentially
violated, would result in death and carnage!

: It has taken some time for the FBI to understand and be more sensitive
: regarding situations with radical and extremist groups. Sadly, they have
: learned this through tragedies such as Ruby Ridge and Waco.

Bullshit. They learned EVERY rule so long before Waco and RR
that every so-called negotiator at Waco was taught
using at least one of the standard textbooks! The idea
that the "learned" from their mistakes at Waco, then
implemented what they learned in Montana, is total bullshit.

: But during
: the Montana Freeman standoff they employed much of the avice/strategy
: previously rejected during Waco--e.g. working with member's families and
: being less provocative. This proved effective in Montana.

And only the FBI gets away with Bullshit like that.
Here is proof. Had I machine-gunned a group of people on TV,
been arrested and sat at trial before a jury that contained
you Rick Ross, would it be effective or convincing if I
attempted to prove my innocence by showing that i could stroll
by a random crowd of folks with a loaded machine gun without
killing them also? No. You would not accept that as a proof
of anything at all Ross. But you suggest that your
use of that defense for the FBI ought to be bought
by the populace. What shit!

: It seems to me that the most obvious explanation of why the FBI
: suppressed information is not some insidious conspiracy to cover up
: murder and/or mayhem, but rather a zealous effort, and a rather stupid
: one, at public relations and spin control.

So any other criminal who flushes evidence down
the toilet during a drug raid is practicing "spin
control?" Any other person who destroys evidence,
is just practicing spin control? Are you that dull?
You don't think they fake evidence to get convictions?
You honestly don't think they would destroy evidence
to prevent the public from reaching a conclusion that
the committed murder? That they might do so for spin,
but not to prevent themselves from being charged
with crimes or murder?

: They wanted to look good and
: eliminate even the slightest premise for an alternate theory of events.

And on the basis of their almost complete success
in this effort to "sanitize" YOU are comfortable with
their claims of innocence? You kneejerk react
to anything new by automatically accepting it as
"defensive fire" before seeing any of the evidence
or the factual context of it?

: Ironically, from what is known thus far--if they had released all the
: information it seems they actually would have been better off.

That is ONLY if what they have admitted to is
the truth, the whole truth, the spin-free truth, and only if
you remain mercifully innocent of the ravages
of any thermal IR video tape in W:ROE.
How wonderful it would be to commit murder
and have you on the jury... but only if were
an FBI officer. If I were an accused member
of one of the small religious cults you earn you
living off of, I would no doubt be held to a different
evidenciary standard....

: I look forward to the Danforth Investigation exposing whatever facts
: remain unknown, but I don't consider people like McNulty credible.

Why not? Are you saying he made up the IR Video?
Are you saying he misinterprets the IR video?

What exactly can you say, besides empty insults,
useless classifications (again like Jonestown this, or
Jonestown that...), and vague diversions to other, sanitized
authorities?

Without McNulty, we may have never known of the
IR video that shows gunfire directed at the locations
of some 23 corpses.

Mr.
: McNulty is just part of the cottage industry that has sprung up around
: Waco.

And you Mr. Ross are just a parasite living
on the Freedoms we Americans have to practice
religions. You have no more "judicious sense
for what NOT to believe" than any of the folks
you probably deprogram. Your unwillingness to
confront the evidences that the feds behaved
in a strategic, coordinated, premeditated fashion
towards the destruction of the Davidians is truely
impressive.

: By the way--it really defeats your purpose when you go on and on about
: how people that don't agree with you are "sheep" or "blind" etc. or part
: of the "cult of the glass teet."

People who do not agree are not thus labeled. It is
those who pretend to enter into dialogue, who pretend
to have expertise, who pretend to have professional
opinions of Professional authors like Wright, who then
turn out to either lie about what they say, or to
have been ignorant from the first paragraph about the
work of that author.
When a person persists in a belief against evidence
to the contrary, he is deluded, or perhaps has extraordinary
evidence of another variety. I am waiting eagerly
for you to produce the latter, but in spite of the
first hand knowledge you claim to have of the event,
that knowledge does not come out of you. You have
nothing to refute the evidences I put forth to show malice.
Nothing to refute the patent obvious fact, that each
set of conditions and actions that proved deadly, was
planned and executed by the feds. Nothing to refute
that the balance of evidence shows that the davidians
acted in reasonable and predictable ways - and that
the FBI and BATF exploited that predictability to
engineer the catastrophe and the deaths of so many innocent
lives.

This makes your argument appear almost
: religious--as if it is a matter of faith rather than facts.

Totally insensate as you are to the pages of facts
I and Stuart Wright, and Pete Smerick, etc. have
provided, I am not surprised you would say that.
If I shut my eyes like you, and keep them shut
long enough, I can say the world is dark and only
religious fanatics believe otherwise.

I have often
: thought that conspiracy theorists and UFO believers are almost like a
: religious belief system--i.e. they seem so ardent and devout about their
: positions and often ignore the facts, standing essentially on faith
: instead.

So your are admitting to which, the UFO beliefs
or the Conspiracy theorys?

: Rick Ross
: http://www.rickross.com

Fred Mrozek

www.wastingmetime.org