From: j979@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca (FULLER  M)
Subject: Re: Riddle me this...
Organization: University of New Brunswick
Distribution: usa
Lines: 30

In article <1993Apr21.040839.20574@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>In article <1993Apr20.050550.4660@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca> j979@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca (FULLER  M) writes:
>>That the gas was "not harmful", as the sensitive, caring Janet Reno described 
>>it?
>
>Is it? As far as I know, tear gas, especially in large concentrations,
>is very dangerous (even toxic) for small children. This makes the
>FBI's supposedconcern for the safety of the children seem rather 
>hypocritical.
>

Not to mention that the G-men believed the children didn't have gas masks.

But that was not, with respect to the children, the point of the gassing.
The feds *knew* that the children's health would be in danger and proceeded
under the assumption that the "motherly instinct" of the Davidian women
would remove them from harm's way. I busted a gut on that one.

Someone else on the net observed that the administration's appeal to a
woman's "motherly instinct" would never wash with feminists and liberals
if a republican were in the White House. I say that such an justification
could *only* come from a feminist mindset. 

BTW - I'd read in the paper yesterday that the type of gas used was CS2.
The paper didn't provide any specifics about it.

"Guess I'm still writing..."
Malcolm Fuller, Surveying Engineering, University of New Brunswick
malcolm@atlantic.cs.unb.ca or j979@jupiter.csd.unb.ca              }>:-/> --->
_____________ Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietam servitutem ____________
