Subject: Welcome to the Republican Party!!
Snappy title to get your attention, but I'll say it anyway, 'cos you're getting pretty damn close.
One of the biggest problems I've had with the
GOFP is that they're generally the party of hate and death.
They hate people, and they see the best solutions
as those of death (executions and military action).
Yes, what happened this week was wrong.
No argument there. Yes, we should increase security
and watch our asses. Yes, bring them to
justice/secure our safety as a nation. If the only way to
do that is through sending the marines to wipe
them out, then so be it.
But I'm not for supporting a new Vietnam/Kuwait/Korea.
I'm not for "glassing" other countries.
Killing some of their civilians will not make
up for our civilians.
You want a plan from a dove? Ask me.
I'm not a liberal-- I'm a Libertarian, and we
do have this one figured out.
Rick
P.S. Do you have any plans to start calling
Arabs "sand-niggers" in future editions?
I think it would go over well with your new readership.
Rick, I doubt we'll find any countries that are 100 percent enemy,
so I wouldn't consider "glassing" them, but thanks for having faith.
Subject: You are wrong
BC, you have been pretty harsh with the people
who talk “peace and love” and I understand why,
but I think you miss their point. I don’t want
peace and love with these murderers, but I don’t think
the detractors you have highlighted do either.
We all want revenge. We want to kill the people who
planned this act. I think you have missed the
nuance, though. All the people you have hammered
have expressed the same feelings that I share.
We don’t want to indiscriminately bomb innocent people.
Many of us feel that that is exactly what our
un-elected government is going to do.
Kill innocent people with American bombs.
And how is that different than terrrorist murderers
killing Americans?
We want to make sure we are the good guys.
I know you are angry.
Everybody is angry, but lets not loose our heads.
Hey, I'm on your side, dude.
Derek
Derek,
It boggles that so many people fail to see the distinction.
Yes, I imagine innocent people will die if we bomb Afghanistan.
But those are accidents that can't be helped.
We're fighting religio-crazies who want to murder as many of us as possible.
They could've hijacked red-eyes and taken those buildings down with
minimal
loss of life but thet INTENDED to murder thousands.
...and I'm doing a terrible job of convincing anybody of that.
I'm sure the next question is, "Dead is dead - what's the difference?"
If a guy has a heart attack at the wheel and crashes into a crowd on
the sidewalk,
that's different from taking aim and stomping on the gas pedal.
By the way, you never said what your answer was...
Subject: Settle Down Dude!
Hey Bartcop,
Love your site and have been reading it for years.
I agree with you 90 to 100 percent of the time,
but regarding the attack on the WTC and Pentagon,
you're starting to sound like that mad
General Curtis Lemay during the Cuban missile
crisis.
ha ha
I've been getting a lot of that...
BTW, F-15's an F-16's are land based fighters.
F-14's and F-18's are carrier based.
Wouldn’t want to see General Bartcop make the
same mistake again.
Bad for morale, esprit de corps, and all that.
Gordon
Subject: I'd have to disagree with your stance on bombing
You have every right to want to exterminate Bin Laben but this does not solve the problem.
Bin Laden's operatives are found throughout the
world. An article in Jane's Intelligence Review
reported that Al-Qaeda "is a conglomerate of
groups spread throughout the world operating as a network.
It has a global reach, with a presence in Algeria,
Egypt, Morocco, Turkey, Jordan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan,
Syria, Xinjiang in China, Pakistan, Bangladesh,
Malaysia, Myanmar, Indonesia, Mindanao in the Philippines,
Lebanon, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain,
Yemen, Libya, Tunisia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Chechnya, Dagestan,
Kashmir, Sudan, Somalia, Kenya, Tanzania, Azerbaijan,
Eritrea, Uganda, Ethiopia, and in the West Bank
and Gaza "With all of the above locations it
is'nt feasable to wipe out the entire area.
Although i like the idea.we are realisticaly going
to need the cooperation of the noted nations to provide us
intelligence and perhaps force them to round
up the terrorists in their regionand turn them over. Those nations
that defy will be dealt with harshly.Otherwise
we alienate the support we have garnered from world leaders,
therefore losing an opportunity to make an impact
on the real problem which is the small group of individuals
that are guilty. Dont get me wrong though i work
for a defense contractor and love fireworks. We now have
the support of most of the world. We have an
opportunity to make tremdenous headway in eliminating terrorism
and creating world laws in how to punish them.We
must cooperate with any and all nations that will give their
participation. Place extreme pressure of a variety
of means on those that don't.
Sanctions may be the answer in a few instances
but will not be the knee jerk response for all. Neccesary force
throughout the process is the answer to restore
our personal safety,therefore negating the need to impinge upon
or civil liberties that were dearly won long
ago. I feel anything less than the complete elimination from society
of any known terrorist would be a waste of many
lives. The only means available to us to honor the deaths
of our fellow countrymen is to make the most
of the favor we have gained as a result of their misfortune.
If i had loved ones or was myself killed in this
cowardly act i would be pleased to know that my life made
a difference. Bottom line is we can not risk
losing the support we have unfortunately had lain in our laps.
Just the opine of a loyal fan,
Ben
Subject: bartcop's "war" rhetoric
When bartcop's crackin' on GeeDubya, it can be the best giggles online.
When bartcop's foamin' at the mouth, chest outthrust,
all fulla "mah kuntry, raht er wrawng",
especially when he demonstrates obvious and specific
ignorance of the culpability of the
United States in creating many of the monsters
that have come home to roost in the recent past,
including Islamist militance in the particular
person of Osama bin Laden, well...it ain't so funny.
Study up on the history of Palestinian disempowerment,
disaffection, and disenfranchisement
and the complicity of Uncle Sam in the whole
wretched mess, bartcop, and you may find
what you so desperately need to temper your sabre-rattlin'
tendencies.
I, along with my countrymen and a large percentage
of the population of the rest of the world,
condemn and DAMN the wanton acts of murderous
destruction that were perpetrated on our
shores this week; I realize, however, that simplistic
war-waging will NOT do any more than
give those who hate us even MORE reason to do
so and to continue lashing out at us.
Put away the war-bonnet, bartcop, lest we become
embroiled in something which will be
killing our grandchildren before it's concluded...if
ever.
What you just said sounds like this to me:
"If we fight back, they might get mad."
I don't like surrender talk.
Subject: Stupidest remark you ever made.
BC,
You said,
> Now, maybe you have a list of casualties
in Iraq or Yugoslavia, but they weren't targeted by us.
> And maybe you'd like to bring up Dresden
or Hiroshima, but that was 60 years ago,
> and this wasn't revenge for that.
What the hell do casualty lists have to do with
it anyway?
No, we don't have lists of casualties, because
the WHORE MEDIA
in America would never burden us with those.
When I read your paragraph I felt an anger like
I've never felt. My first message to you got lost
and I've cooled down some. But I have never
heard or read a statement like that to make me
so GODDAM angry. Not even from W&S!!
What the FUK kind of statement is that?
You mean because we have the technology to fly
miles in the sky and do indiscriminate bombing,
wiping out entire cities with husbands, wifes,
mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, grandparents,
and everyone our "enemies" love, that we are
more humane. We didn't target anybody in El Salvadore,
but our CIA and several appointed lackies in
W&S administration had a hand in 30,000 deaths within
the 1970's and 80's. You are saying, we
are better because we didn't target them..
What the hell difference does it make if your
loved one is dead that they were or were not a target?
They become as our GODDAM WHORE MEDIA have put
it "collateral" damage.
How about this.....I think that the bombers on
Tuesday were really only after Barbara Olsen
and George Bush, but just like Reagan and his
raid on Ghadafi, they missed their targets.
All those people in the Towers and the Pentagon
and in Pennsylvania were nothing more than collateral damage.
You clearly did NOT think through that statement,
BC.
Drunks, blind on the highways, don't target their
victims either.
Man, you're losing your guru status with that kind of shit.....
Love ya.....
Larry
Larry, most of my mail agrees with you.
Even tho we consult experts to avoid bombing churches and museums,
even tho we use our sophisticated targeting software to hit only intended
targets,
and we don't bomb on holidays or Ramadan or whatever, you and most
(former) readers
still see no difference between America's military and the insane
religious killers,
and I can't understand why.
Subject: Re: The Larger Terrorism
I must be a Dove. Killing tastes about equally
bitter to me no matter who's doing it,
whose side they are on, or whose rules they are
following.
I know that freedom has to be defended.
Life is full of ugly compromises. But I think we should also
be more thoughtful about the consequences of
our actions on foreign soil. We funded and trained those
"religiously insane" people in Afghanistan because
we
wanted to help them kill Soviets. It didn't seem
necessary to me then (admittedly, I was only
in high school at the time), and it sure doesn't seem worth it
to me now, that we are counting the cost in lives
of American civilians.
By the way, I'm doing most of my "fact checking"
from this article:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2001/09/12/spies/index.html
Subject: bombings
Still waiting for your tactical approach to the
terrortists and their supporters beyong
the insane "glass" them comment. The "doves dont
have an answer" mantra is wearing thin.
These are the people who mostly want a smart way
to go about the vengence the US will apply
to those responsible. WAR, WAR, WAR... All ive
heard is war but where is the exit strategy?
This the Repugs have said over and over is a condition
for war. Mostly against Clinton and the Dems.
The doves are the only people asking the smart
questions but I have yet to hear any answers other
than mindless sabber-rattling. What exactly is
your plan BC?
My "tactical approach" would be to have intelligence identify and locate
these religio-nuts
then have the military remove them.
Subject: I'm with you, Bartcop
I was saddened to read that your e-mail is running
heavily against retaliation for
the unspeakable atrocities of Tuesday morning.
For what it's worth, I'm a life long
fire-eating unrepentant liberal Democrat, still
furious at the theft of the presidency,
but I'll back this administration in whatever
it chooses to do to rid the world of this threat...
just as long as the response makes any kind of
practical/tactical/political sense to me.
AND AS LONG AS THEY TELL US THE TRUTH ABOUT IT.
(I know that that's a real challenge for them.)
Thank you for your web site. It helps keep
me sane.
Carol C.
Carol,
I'm trying to determine if there's a relation between liberals not
wanting to fight here and
the liberals who refused to fight in the presidential campaign, and
in Florida and in the Senate.
Subject: How is it possible?
You said:
> "How is it possible my mail is running 4-1 for the doves? "
Just possibly it's because this time you are wrong.
I always allow for that possibility, but what I meant was polls
show
88 percent of the country wants a quick military response, and 8 percent
want to do nothing, but since I wrote that, it's maybe gone to 15-1.
I think I've read four "I'm with you" e-mails, and one was from a Freeper.
Subject: Kill..kill...kill
Bartcop:
I am shocked by your hysterical stance on the
terrorist situation.
I'm all for catching those who did it and executing
THEM.
But not innocent women and children who did
nothing.
That is MURDER. That is TERRORISM.
I am a regular reader and have always looked to
you for ENLIGHTENMENT.
Now I feel like I am accessing a leftist FREEPER
site when I go to BARTCOP.
Sure, melt the ones who did it to glass (your
solution), but if the US can't PROVE
they did it our country should not be executing
SUSPECTS.
That is even worse than our own "normal daily"
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT,
and makes us even WORSE than Smirk.