Posted on 12/08/2015 8:54:29 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Exclusive: Republican presidential campaign rhetoric is red-hot regarding Islamic terrorism, with Sen. Cruz suggesting the use of nuclear weapons to see âif sand can glow in the dark,â a threat even more troubling than Donald Trumpâs call to temporarily bar Muslims from entering the U.S., writes Robert Parry.
As Republican presidential candidates lined up to one-up each other about how they would fight Islamic terrorism, many mainstream pundits questioned the hysteria and took particular aim at billionaire Donald Trump for seeking a moratorium on admitting Muslims to the United States, but Trumpâs proposal was far from the most outrageous.
Getting much less attention was a statement by Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, who is considered by many a more likely GOP nominee than Trump. Cruz suggested that the United States should nuke the territory in Iraq and Syria controlled by Islamic State militants.
âI donât know if sand can glow in the dark, but weâre going to find out,â Cruz told a Tea Party rally in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. In reference to Cruzâs comment, a New York Times editorial added, âwhatever that means.â But the phrase âglow in the darkâ popularly refers to the aftermath of a nuclear bomb detonation.
In other words, Cruz was making it clear to his audience that he would be prepared to drop a nuclear bomb on Islamic State targets. While the bombastic senator from Texas was probably engaging in hyperbole â as he also vowed to âcarpet bomb them into oblivionâ â the notion of a major candidate for President cavalierly suggesting a nuclear strike would normally be viewed as disqualifying, except perhaps in this election cycle.
While Cruz drew little attention for his âglow in the darkâ remark, Trump came under intense criticism for his proposal to block the admission of Muslims into the United States until the nationâs leaders can âfigure out what is going onâ in the aftermath of the Dec. 2 terror attack by a Muslim husband-and-wife team in San Bernardino, California.
Across mainstream politics and media, Trumpâs idea was decried as bothâ¦
Would get my vote.
Sand glows. And so would Baghdadi. A bright effervecent green as cancer consumes him.
Was wondering when someone would point out the ‘sand glows’ comment would get this spin.
The time to do this was back in 2001 in Afghanistan. Not happening, at least not as a first strike.
Never say never.
Getting much less attention was a statement by Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, who is considered by many a more likely GOP nominee than Trump.
LOL....considered by many? Funny. Not by folks attending Trump’s rallies and taking state and national polls.
Who writes this drivel? Karl Rove in his robe and bunny slippers?
But nukes shouldn't be off the table. History says it can take a lot to impress the shit out of muslim fanatics. I seem to recall the Mongels killing every single person in a city of 100k that had sufficiently pissed them off and piled all their skulls up. The Mongels wiped out a large chunk of the Islamic Empire back in the day, but we should also learn from subsequent history. The conquered Muslims culturally assimilated the Mongels over the next couple hundred years. And a later Muslim conquerer, Tamerlame, adopted the city skull piling trick.
I hope Cruz doesn’t go full retard.
Love the guy, number one on my list but don’t freak out trying to out Trump Trump.
Too many DJT voters ready to protect their candidate.
Ted, your best bet is a VP bid.
“normally be viewed as disqualifying, except perhaps in this election cycle.”
There’s that word again, “disqualifying”. I’ve rarely seen it applied to political speech, outside of this election cycle. Funny how that works.
Actually the Dems ran it just once then withdrew.. then the MSM employees ran it every night as a news item until the election in November 1964.
The Islamic refugees may or may not be ISIS, the ones bombed in Syria and Iraq most definitely are.
Ne’s got a whole LOT of catching up to do, to be the nominee, which I really don’t see happening.
You can’t nuke Muslims! It’s unconstitutional!
Yes and no.
The Afghanis have been battling EACH OTHER even before there was an "official" country of Afghanistan ("stan" means "land of"). It's a country with little or no fresh water sources.
Family feuds make the Hatfields and McCoys sound like a kid's birthday party.
It's a MISERABLE, corrupt country that produces the heroin poppy...and you can BET that the peasants get ZERO of its worth. The peons own NO LAND.
A few wealthy powerful families control the banks, land, police and politicians.
It is typical of the usual third world sewer.
There was that disqualifying Dean scream.
I'm not sure on glowing sand, but that'll definitely make for one of the largest, fastest growing, and most unconventional mass of glass.
Whooah!! Hahaha!! Now we’re talking!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.