Newt Gingrich offered without comment

[Shaun @ Tru6]

[Jim Richards]

It sounds like ol' Newt wants to kill all the Muslims.

[carnutzzz]

I don't see that.

If the muslims policed themselves we wouldn't have to. Why don't they?

Because they don't care how many are hell-bent on wiping-out us infidels. Makes them guilty of something, doesn't it?

[ckissick]

Originally Posted by Jim Richards

It sounds like ol' Newt wants to kill all the Muslims.

No, he wants to wipe out Islamic extremism that would prevent women from attending that meeting. I missed the part where he said to kill all muslims.

[nostatic]

hyperbolic tripe to inflame the masses. But I wouldn't expect anything less from a politician.

Is some of what he says true? Most certainly. Does that mean that his conclusions that there are two alternatives (surrender or defeat them ) necessarily follow? No. That is the problem.

Shallow words for a deep problem.

[onewhippedpuppy]

Originally Posted by Jim Richards

It sounds like ol' Newt wants to kill all the Muslims.

Guess I missed that part too.

He may over simplify things, but at least he skips the PC BS of pandering to the minorities. It may be political rhetoric, but I'm tired of liberals trying to convince us that the people trying to kill us aren't really trying to kill us. All muslims? No. But even the moderates disagree with our way of life, while the extremists are are a bit more forceful. Not to mention, the "traditions" of many muslims when it comes to women are simply obscene, and get very little media attention. I agree with freedom of religion, but not when that religion promotes opression, rape, and abuse of women.

[Racerbvd]

Originally Posted by nostatic

hyperbolic tripe to inflame the masses. But I wouldn't expect anything less from a politician.

Is some of what he says true? Most certainly. Does that mean that his conclusions that there are two alternatives (surrender or defeat them ) necessarily follow? No. That is the problem.

Shallow words for a deep problem.

Considering their actions & history of violence to everyone, including civilians, what would you have us do, stick our heads in the sand and pretend they aren't going to do anything???

[nostatic]

Originally Posted by Racerbvd

Considering their actions & history of violence to everyone, including civilians, what would you have us do, stick our heads in the sand and pretend they aren't going to do anything???

Have I ever said that? The answer to that would be, "no." Things need to be done, but there are more than two choices. Surrender and knee-jerk "turn 'em to glass" are not the only ways to go.

So the question remains, what are each of us personally doing in the global war on terror? I hear a lot of blow-hard posturing and talk of taking the fight to them, but seemingly very little real action.

[Racerbvd]

Originally Posted by nostatic

Have I ever said that? The answer to that would be, "no." Things need to be done, but there are more than two choices. Surrender and knee-jerk "turn 'em to glass" are not the only ways to go.

So the question remains, what are each of us personally doing in the global war on terror? I hear a lot of blow-hard posturing and talk of taking the fight to them, but seemingly very little real action.

Please, tell us, what else can we do that hasn't been tried for who knows how many years!!!! It is very clear that they have one goal, being that most Muslims will not speak out against terrorist actions and some, even ones here celebrate their actions. Their goal has been made clear, their actions have shown that they are willing to do what ever it takes to achive that goal.

Does that mean that his conclusions that there are two alternatives (surrender or defeat them ) necessarily follow? No. That is the problem.

Us not willing to do what it takes, is what is going kill us

[nostatic]

Well then, it would seem that figuring out ways to get the moderates to speak out and root out the extremists might be a good path, no? You think nuking Mecca is going to have that effect?

Some of us are working on ways to do the former so we don't have to resort to the latter.

[Racerbvd]

Originally Posted by nostatic

Well then, it would seem that figuring out ways to get the moderates to speak out and root out the extremists might be a good path, no? You think nuking Mecca is going to have that effect?

Some of us are working on ways to do the former so we don't have to resort to the latter.

It worked in Japan didn't it

Originally Posted by Jim Richards

It sounds like ol' Newt wants to kill all the Muslims.

What's your point?

[nostatic]

it isn't the 1930's

Don't worry...you just keep doing what you're doing to help the fight...

[Racerbvd]

Originally Posted by nostatic

it isn't the 1930's

Don't worry...you just keep doing what you're doing to help the fight...

And you keep encouraging the terrorist like jane fonda did in Vietnam

[nostatic]

Originally Posted by Racerbvd

And you keep encouraging the terrorist like jane fonda did in Vietnam

Wow, you have no idea how moronic/ironic that comment is. But that's ok too. Have a super night!

[Tobra]

Originally Posted by nostatic

hyperbolic tripe to inflame the masses. But I wouldn't expect anything less from a politician.

Is some of what he says true? Most certainly. Does that mean that his conclusions that there are two alternatives (surrender or defeat them ) necessarily follow? No. That is the problem.

Shallow words for a deep problem.

I disagree.

They are heartfelt words by a man who loves his country and has devoted a good part of his life to it. Obviously there are more than 2 choices, but as you say, he is a politician, they speak in soundbites. I would say he is trying to do the same thing with his audience that you are to Byron, motivate them to do something positive about this.

Americans are not taking this situation seriously enough(well you are). Is a bit of hyperbole to snap their apathetic asses to attention that awful? If you still think what you said in my sig, perhaps not...

[nostatic]

I'm in agreement with what you say. The problem with hyperbole is it cuts both ways. Yes, it can move people to action. But it also gets them to think in very black and white terms, and that can lead to even more problems.

I don't doubt that Gingrich is heartfelt in what he says. But he's also courting big money, and he's no dummy. He knows what will sell. Same thing with Michael Moore. I watched Sicko and was fairly appalled by his hyperbole. I try to see through it to the real issues. And I use hyperbole quite a bit (like in my first response to this post). For some of the same reasons that Gingrich and Moore do...to provoke a response and get a dialogue going. So maybe we're not that different...but it just bugs me to see paper tigers.

[Rearden]

Right on, Newt. Americans don't take the war on terror (war against radical islam) seriously enough.