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 “if sand can glow in the dark,†a threat even more troubling than Donald Trump’s 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 Trump’s 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.
“I don’t know if sand can glow in the dark, but we’re going to find out,†Cruz told a Tea Party rally in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. In reference to Cruz’s comment, a New York Times editorial added, “whatever that means.†But the phrase “glow in the dark†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 – as he also vowed to “carpet bomb them into oblivion†– 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 “glow in the dark†remark, Trump came under intense criticism for his proposal to block the admission of Muslims into the United States until the nation’s leaders can “figure out what is going on†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, Trump’s idea was decried as both…
Robert Parry won’t find it troubling when ISIS reaches it’s goal to kill 10 million Americans .
The ISIS MANIFESTO: What Every American Needs To Know About ISIS Plan To Kill ‘Ten Million Americans’
http://shoebat.com/2014/09/22/isis-spokesman-supporters-kill-europeans-americans-canadians-way-possible/
I have a real aversion to killing people who are not connected to a deed.
One of the most despicable aspects of terrorism is the random killing of innocents.
Academically, sure the whole of Islam is problematic, but do we really want to kill innocents randomly also?
I’ll touch on the drivers of the fuel trucks. I’m doing it because they knew they were driving for ISIS. You don’t warn them because you want others to fear driving fuel trucks for ISIS. There’s a logical military reason for the action there.
Just up and killing a city worth of people doesn’t sit well with me, unless it can be explained how they were directly complicit.
This is a decision I would make with a team of top level advisors.
I don’t have a great answer here.
Creative, proportional, meaningful, and an example of where thing were headed if some common sense didn’t start coming into play.
Then escalate the future costs until some rationality took over.
We may have to do some very distasteful things. I wouldn’t go to the max out of the box.
Once you’ve done your worst, there’s no way to do worse.
At some point I’d start eradicating symbols if Islam. Eventually Mecca would be on the line.
Thank you Eddie01.
I subscribe to that theory too.
One day we may be forced to pay back a massive debt they are owed, if you catch my drift.
We had to murder millions and millions of Japanese soldiers and citizens in order to break their will. We made the Emperor declare he was not a god. Now they make our cars and kiss our ass.
In order to win this war we had better get it through our heads that we will have to murder tens of millions or even hundreds of millions of Muslim men, women and children. We must make them want to stop fighting. We will have to utterly destroy their religion. We must make them declare that Mohamed was a goat herd rapist and Allah is not god.
Then they can make our radios and kiss our ass. Or they can all die. Makes no real difference to us in the long run.
I have no problem with tactical nuclear strikes that eliminate for hundreds or thousands of years bunches of ISIS creeps. Doesn’t take too many “boots on the ground” to effectively stomp ‘em out with nukes.
If that’s what it takes, then that’s what it takes.
All but Raqqa, the ISIS capital. I want to firebomb that — so everyone has to see it. There is symbolic value in that. Maybe we can follow up with nukes.
I love it ! Both Trump and Cruz should come out and say that if they are President and islamist terrorists ever succeed in attacking America with WMD’s ( nukes) we will immediately target Mecca with nuclear weapons in retaliation . Without further notice or warning .
Put that ball in their court .
We are fighting a war for our survival with an enemy agent as or CINC.
Nothing is off the table. I would rather nuke Raqaa than 5,000 Marines die to take it.
We have tactical nukes and neutron bombs now, not the indiscrimanate destruction of Japan.
Once Pres. Cruz or Trump is in charge and a real war is waged I don't think they'll be needed anyhow.
I don’t care what weapons are used as long they are used effectively to kill as many jihadis as possible and to press the campaign until there are no jihadis left.
Kill them all.
A bunch of muslims chopping each other’s heads off in the desert 7,000 miles away is not a threat to our survival. Letting them into the country can have adverse effect though. Regardless, nuking ISIS is overkill - we have enough technology and conventional weapons to deal with the situation.
Anyhow, in my post:
Once Pres. Cruz or Trump is in charge and a real war is waged I don't think they'll be needed anyhow.
I understand that people don’t want a lot of collateral damage. But you have to remember that it is Islam we are talking about.
These are people who celebrate when their grown children blow themselves up in a suicide attack.
They hand out candy when thousands of innocents are murdered.
They strap explosives onto their small children and send them to their deaths.
Rational thought does not enter the equation.
There is only one way to combat such people and that is with total war.
You can never win their hearts and minds.
You can never get them to hold an honest and rational discussion because their religion, which governs every aspect of their lives, teaches them to lie to nonbelievers.
There are only two kinds of muzlims: the ones who are actively trying to kill you and the rest who support the killers.
The few good muzlims are the ones who leave the religion of hate and embrace Jesus as Lord. All others are either killers or enablers.
And even the children can never be trusted.
Nits make lice as we used to say.
Like I said, total war is the only solution. We could wipe out half the muzlim population worldwide and only delay the end solution.
Islam and those who practice it are incompatible with decent society.
I would rather take on the job now and ensure my grandchildren have a safe world to live in.
Brutal?
Sure, but the muzlim is even more brutal.
I simply see them as they are, not as I wish they were.
I think the real way to win this is to take a page from Bismarck: Muslims, and even more to the point, Arabs, are EXTREMELY fractious. There never has, nor will there ever be, a United Muslim Front.
Be smart. Turn them against each other, Sunni against Shia, Persian against Arab. They will forget their their hatred of the west, and attack and slaughter each other for a hundred years in their sandbox called the Middle East, just as they have done for a millennium.
All we have to do is protect Israel.
Fort hood and San Bernardino are threats to our survival? Hardly. If I could get rid of liberals or Muslims, I’d choose liberals. The only real threat to our survival is the corruption of values in our society. What’s a bigger threat, ISIS or gun control? ISIS or the income tax, ISIS or eminent domain? ISIS or the assault on free speech in colleges? ISIS or illegal immigration? ISIS or abortion?
Sure, if it were tactically warranted.
But I don't think there's enough of them in one place at one time to warrant it.
The problem is really not that hard to solve.
Two infantry divisions (or a Marine Expeditionary Unit:), augmented by an extra Artillery Brigade, would reduce ISIS to little more than dead bodies in a week.
They are little more than street thugs...a big Crips.
...and racist!
Oh boy.
Some of those brits slammed that koolaid down real hard.
Ay yay yay.
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.