XPost: talk.politics.misc 
 From: RottenTomatoes@MrHormel 
  
 In article <20040906.1814.57696snz@dsl.co.uk>, Brian {Hamilton Kelly} 
  wrote: 
 >[Newsgroups reset; I don't take tpm, but _would_ like to see responses] 
 > 
 >On Sunday, in article <878ybouz5i.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> 
 >     rra@stanford.edu "Russ Allbery" wrote: 
 > 
 >> This was only a portion of his original statement, he was talking about 
 >> the final resolution of the standoff that resulted in 350 dead rather than 
 >> the initial act of terrorism, and even this has been withdrawn and 
 >> clarified.  Rather than looking for bizarre pop psychology to explain why 
 >> someone would ask this question, you may want to remember the previous 
 >> hostage crisis where the Russians ended up killing a fair chunk of the 
 >> hostages through misapplied use of crowd control gas. 
 > 
 >Actually, the gas did NOT kill many of the hostages; quite a large 
 >majority of them were brought out alive.  Unfortunately, the stretcher 
 >bearers bringing them out did not have time to do more before re-entering 
 >the theatre to fetch the next one, so they were left on the pavement. 
 >Outside, in the pouring rain, on their backs (no one seems to have been 
 >aware of the recovery position).  So many died _after_ rescue, from 
 >either exposure or even, in some case, drowning[1]. 
 > 
 >Partly this was due to a shortage of ambulances and trained first-aiders; 
 >which probably accounts for so many private cars having been used on 
 >Friday. 
 > 
 >[1]The media tends to ignore this fact; preferring instead to portray the 
 >overpowering of those particular terrorists as being bungled. 
  
 Still as boring and longwinded as ever, eh, Brian? 
  
 But, yeah. Point taken. 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)