Portion of Newt Gingrich's Speech -- a must read

[snopes]

Comment: I believe every word of this! Our world is no longer what it used to be and it never will be again. If our politicians don’t open their eyes, we’re in for a big hit!!

This is a transcript of a section of a Gingrich Speech in New Hampshire. Apparently it is causing a firestorm.

------------------

NEWT GINGRICH: The third thing I want to talk about very briefly is the genuine danger of terrorism, in particular terrorists using weapons of mass destruction and weapons of mass murder, nuclear and biological weapons. And I want to suggest to you that right now we should be impaneling people to look seriously at a level of supervision that we would never dream of if it weren't for the scale of threat.

Let me give you two examples. When the British this summer arrested people who were planning to blow up ten airliners in one day, they arrested a couple who were going to use their six month old baby in order to hide the bomb as baby milk.

Now, if I come to you tonight and say that there are people on the planet who hate you, and they are 15-25 year old males who are willing to die as long as they get to kill you, I've simply described the warrior culture which has been true historically for 6 or 7 thousand years.

But, if I come to you and say that there is a couple that hates you so much that they will kill their six month old baby in order to kill you, I am describing a level of ferocity, and a level of savagery beyond anything we have tried to deal with.

And, what is truly frightening about the British experience is they are arresting British citizens, born in Britain, speaking English, who went to British schools, live in British housing, and have good jobs.

This is a serious long term war, and it will inevitably lead us to want to know what is said in every suspect place in the country, that will lead us to learn how to close down every website that is dangerous, and it will lead us to a very severe approach to people who advocate the killing of Americans and advocate the use of nuclear or biological weapons.

And, my prediction to you is that either before we lose a city, or if we are truly stupid, after we lose a city, we will adopt rules of engagement that use every technology we can find to break up their capacity to use the internet, to break up their capacity to use free speech, and to go after people who want to kill us to stop them from recruiting people before they get to reach out and convince young people to destroy their lives while destroying us.
This is a serious problem that will lead to a serious debate about the first amendment, but I think that the national security threat of losing an American city to a nuclear weapon, or losing several million Americans to a biological attack is so real that we need to proactively, now, develop the appropriate rules of engagement.

And, I further think that we should propose a Geneva convention for fighting terrorism which makes very clear that those who would fight outside the rules of law, those who would use weapons of mass destruction, and those who would target civilians are in fact subject to a totally different set of rules that allow us to protect civilization by defeating barbarism before it gains so much strength that it is truly horrendous.

This is a sober topic, but I think it is a topic we need a national dialogue about, and we need to get ahead of the curve rather than wait until actually we literally lose a city which could literally happen within the next decade if we are unfortunate.

(APPLAUSE)

----------------

This is finally said in a way that even the most "head in the sand" person can understand it. Please God, help us.

This is a very sober description of the Islamic terrorist threat we are faced with. We are NOW at war with a culture that wants, not to take over our land, but to KILL us. Please pass this on to those on your list

Our world is no longer what it used to be and it never will be again.

Ya think?

Note, following his ideas to their logical conclusion is we must eliminate most all freedoms (like freedom of movement, etc.) to protect us from this threat. If you even think of going against the government, then you need to be destroyed. We just can't take the chance something bad will happen. Those willing to give up essential freedoms for security should be the only Americans we should let live.

Originally Posted by snopes

Please God, help us.

Hey...that's what those TERRORISTS are always sayin'. You must be one of them!

If you come right down to it, if someone is willing to sacrifice their 6-month old baby to kill other people, there is almost nothing we can do to prevent it, without totally destroying our way of life. I mean, just fill the baby with nitroglycerin, and drop it when you get on the airplane. How are you going to stop that?

[Mouse]

Originally Posted by Doug4.7

If you come right down to it, if someone is willing to sacrifice their 6-month old baby to kill other people, there is almost nothing we can do to prevent it, without totally destroying our way of life. I mean, just fill the baby with nitroglycerin, and drop it when you get on the airplane. How are you going to stop that?

Would that really work? I know you're probably being sarcastic but I was wondering if wouldn't stomach acids keep the nitroglycerin from achieving desired results.

Originally Posted by Mouse

Would that really work? I know you're probably being sarcastic but I was wondering if wouldn't stomach acids keep the nitroglycerin from achieving desired results.

First put a plastic balloon in the kid, then fill the balloon. No, I have no idea if it would work.

[Steve Eisenberg]

No one has yet addressed this from a UL possibility standpoint.

On the one hand, googling finds that he did say much of it, including perhaps what is most incendiary. See MSNBC.

Actually I think this probably is a real transcript of a Gingrich speech. His web site sells web access to all his speeches (at least that's what shop.newt.org says -- I didn't pay the $5.95 to check it out). However, the full OP text is being emailed around the interet, and put on blogs, without clear sourcing, giving what probably is a true transcript an appearance (at least to me) little different from some fabrications.

As for the content, I think that even in wake of a terrorist-style nuclear attack on the US, authorities might want jihadi web sites kept open since they might provide some clues. However, at that inevitable time, which I hope is long after my natural lifespan ends, our democratic process may well result in laws against incitement to murder being passed and/or more strictly enforced. Newt says it is stupid to wait; I think it is neither stupid nor smart, but just inevitable that wartime free speech restrictions arise, roughly proportionate to how desperate the war it.

I do not think we are talking about a nuclear-attacked US turning into the free speech equivalent of North Korea, but rather us becoming the equivalent of today's Germany, where the Nazis are banned. I don't welcome this, but I don't have a horror of it, only of what will cause it.

[Ramblin' Dave]

It hadn't even really occurred to me to question whether or not he really said it. The style is vintage 1994-era Newt (I almost expected to hear the theme from Friends playing in the background), only he's railing against terrorists rather than welfare mothers. So I think it's probably real, but I can't be bothered to find out for sure either.

[vison]

No wonder the terrorists hate the US.

Newt Gingrich.

*sighs*

If there was ever a case of the cure being worse than the disease? Mr. Gingrich demonstrates it quite perfectly.

[Recklessmess]

I think as long as we believe the reason people hate us is is because we're free, and not because of our past/current actions, we'll never be able to effectively solve terrorism. When the suggested solution to fighting a cockroach problem is to burn down your house, you've got more than just a cockroach problem.

[BringTheNoise]

Originally Posted by snopes

Let me give you two examples. When the British this summer arrested people who were planning to blow up ten airliners in one day, they arrested a couple who were going to use their six month old baby in order to hide the bomb as baby milk.

No, they didn't. Baby milk was in fact one of the few liquids were allowed to take onto planes in the immediate aftermath of the raids.

[Dtay]

Originally Posted by Recklessmess

When the suggested solution to fighting a cockroach problem is to burn down your house, you've got more than just a cockroach problem.

Thats just SCREAMING sig line. What do you say?

[Electrotiger]

Apparently it is causing a firestorm.

What is it with these sorts of forwards and that phrase? I swear, it's like Mad Lib:

"Here's _Such and Such Politician_'s speech about _Such and Such Controversial Subject_. _Such and Such Opposing Group_ doesn't want to hear about this because of _Opposing Group's Philosophy_, and apparently it is causing a firestorm."

With who? Guh.

[matches]

Here's a link that I think sums up this issue beautifually
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/43012

The problem with discussing Terrorists and WMD's is that we are always thinking nucular and the fact of the matter is, nukes are really really hard to make.

It is much more likely that terrorists will use some sort of chlorine gas or other toxic agent as a WMD, and such WMD are pretty limited in the MD range. You can take out a city block with a tanker of chlorine gas sure, but soemthing you can fit in a suit case? You would do much better just using conventional explosives.

And that is the real issue with regard to terrorism. If you are afraid of terrorists, you should realize that you have far more to worry from the shipping container with Weapons and explosives on its manifest than from the nucular bomb hidden among the plastic toys manufactured in Taiwan.

Nucular weapons are owned by states, and states do not want them getting into the wrong hands. These weapons are only useful if you never use them, as an actual weapon you are basicly looking at 1940's techonology that makes for a big statment but that is utterly useless for any practical military purpose.

If Iran has a nucular weapon they are unlikely to give it to terrorists, as first off they spent good money on the damn thing, and it'd be quite the boondoggel to just let it get shiped of to some idiot to try and blow up New York, and second because if they give away their nuke, they now have nothing to use in defense if someone launches a counter strike against them.

The terrorist bomb, and nucular war in general is something of a Canard, it scares people and gets them to open their wallets, but in truth neither is ever likely to occur.

Nukes have been with us for over 60 years, and have been held at various times by nations engaged in hot wars committed to the destruction of their enemy, and yet, the weapons have never been used for any military purpose, with the exception of WWII.

Why? Because they have no military purpose. Since it is unlikely that a terrorist could build their own bomb, and equally unlikely that a state would allow their bombs to be used by terrorists, why does this fear even exist.

Because it works! Nucular weapons are terror weapons in that just the thought that they might exist, and be used fill people with fear unimaginable. But if you stop and think rationally about it. The people who would use such a weapon can't get one, and the people who can get one woudl never use it. Once you get past the rehtoric, you realize the world is not filled with mad despots, just power hungry opportunists, and as any power hungry opportunist knows, you get power by threatening not actually attacking. Once you attack, your committed to making the attack work, and will invariably lead to a loss of power not an increase in it.