by Greg Gutfeld
But we don’t have to talk about terrorists anymore. We can just kill them. Good PR fuels recruitment, inflating prowess without proof of battle. So it’s time to shut up and shoot. One humiliating defeat for ISIS, and the bandwagon loses bandwidth.
This is the point Navy SEAL and bin Laden killer Rob O’Neill had been telling me for years, which I repeated on The Five. Maybe someone listened! Because that’s what went down, with blazing success.
After all, the road to Armageddon is paved with political correctness and the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. I think Trump said that.
But ISIS “fighters” are, all along, exactly what you suspected—a pack of chickenshit bullies who just needed a smack to pierce their air of invincibility. What irony—they actually were the JV! Problem was, Obama had resigned us to the freshman intramural squad. Trump now has a varsity letter in kicking ISIS ass. Who knew it would be Donald who’d end up the Big Man on Campus? Could anything irk Obama more?
Key point: If we start killing ISIS in large numbers, then it’s over, recruitment-wise. Because from a propaganda standpoint, they’ve had a free ride at this point in time, because we didn’t take to battle, we haven’t seen any evidence of ISIS being fierce in battle. We only see their brutality against the unarmed. If we were able to show a humiliating defeat, that would help ruin their recruitment efforts. And now, after Trump stepped up our attacks dramatically, you see that it has. Once we started piling up the ISIS corpses, it’s absolutely amazing how their recruitment drive waned. Funny, that. Who could have predicted it? Oh yeah—ME!!!!
February 15, 2016
Last night on 60 Minutes, a show that lasts an hour, CIA Director John Brennan admitted ISIS has chemical weapons, and he expects them to use them on us.
JOHN BRENNAN, CIA DIRECTOR: We have a number of instances where ISIL has used chemical munitions on the battlefield. . . . There are reports that ISIS has access to chemical precursors and munitions that they can use.
QUESTION: You’re expecting an attack in the United States?
BRENNAN: I’m expecting them to try to put in place the operatives, the material, or whatever else that they need to do, or to incite people to carry out these attacks, clearly. So I believe that their attempts are inevitable. I don’t think their successes necessarily are.
Great. So . . . Brennan implies that we cannot stop ISIS until they attack us. Not because we lack the ability, but because we lack the reason. Meaning we need a mountain of American corpses first. Then we’re going to show you!
Check out this exchange from the same program:
QUESTION: If there was a major attack here and we had ISIS fingerprints on it, certainly, this would encourage us to be even more forceful in terms of what it is that we need to do if our policy after an attack in the United States would be to be more forceful. Why isn’t that our policy now, if there were an attack?
BRENNAN: I think we’re being as forceful as we can be in making sure that we’re being surgical, though, as well. What we don’t want to do is to alienate others within that region and have any type of indiscriminate actions that are going to lead to deaths of additional civilians.
“Alienate others”? Omigod—this was the guy in charge??
So there you have it. Rules of engagement, which is code for, put them before us. It’s not only preventing us from stopping ISIS. It’s paving the way for its inevitable attack against our own country.
Imagine a cop saying to you, “We can’t help you out until that crazy guy murders your family. Then by all means, call us.” That’s the logic, and it’s brought to you by the hypertolerant folks behind Islamophobia.
And this is basically the highest cop in the land saying this!
This is not wait and see. It’s wait and die.
And it’s not a moral stance, nor one that protects America. It’s a stance that leads to the death of your loved ones. And it’s not going to be small. It won’t be San Bernardino, and it won’t be a machete attack.
Thanks to the modern threesome of technology, bioagents, and suicidal ideology, the next attack could make 9/11 look like 91/2 Weeks.
I’m running out of these comparisons.
The sad part about this is, we need to wait for it, because it’s the polite thing to do. What a White House. They want to criminalize war, even when ISIS won’t play along.
When the head of the CIA sounds like a sensitivity counselor, you know you’ve got trouble. We needed Patton, but we got Deepak Chopra. Can’t believe that didn’t work out!
No wonder ISIS was able to thrive—because those in charge were more worried about the backlash that might hypothetically occur if we respond . . . after Americans die! Who thinks like this? Long answer: an idiot. Short answer: See the long answer.
March 30, 2016
After every terror attack comes that naïve response to evil. This time, it is from Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, who says to fight Islamic terrorists we must have a world where everyone feels cared for and loved. And who would be against that?
Oh yeah, Islamic terrorists, you butthead.
Look, naïve pacifism is the barnacle on the boat of vigilance—meaning it depends on the commitment of others to kill. If we all thought like Zuck, we would be screwed. My solution: The math of terror is simple. They work 24/7 and must only succeed once. Free from the duties of building and preserving civilization, their world is more agile than ours.
For a peaceful America, fighting terrorism is like a whale trying to swat a hummingbird. They are free to act, and we just react.
But the only thing as agile as terror is our creativity, unleashed in the marketplace. What solves history’s great horrors, from tyrants to disease to poverty, is American ingenuity.
Terror, like everything else, evolves, picking soft targets as others harden. So the solution is an innovative private industry that hardens everything. In this changing world, as old jobs disappear, “terror control” provides the West with new, meaningful work based on turning sitting ducks into well-armed lions. A chain of vocational schools that saves civilization from heathens. Maybe Zuckerberg should start it.
After all, you can’t update your status when you’re dead.
This is a message I return to often: Why isn’t there an industry based on security that is as large and vast as media, entertainment, or academia? After all, without security—rather, the hardening of soft targets—none of those three could operate. There should be a department at every college that offers a major in such hardening vocations, and those vocations should be financially well rewarded once you graduate and enter the real world you protect. The fact is, on a planet where automation may replace most jobs, and existential terror wants to carry all of us from this world to the next, it might actually pay well to create a defense against such violent threats. The solution to the latter, also solves the former problem. And it’s not gender studies. It’s security studies. And we better start this “terror control,” sooner rather than later.
When I go through these monologues, I feel like I’m rummaging through the diary of a person living in a recursive loop—call it Jihadist Groundhog Day. Every day, we catalog another Islamic outrage. And then the next day, we rinse and repeat. I read these monologues, and it’s as if I’m just repeating myself. Yet, I’m not—for every day there is a new outrage, and I have to say the same thing again, somehow finding a new twist to make it memorable to those already jaded by the bloodshed. It’s a job, but someone has to do it. But I honestly wish I didn’t have to.
June 13, 2016
This mono was written after the horrible terror attack in Orlando. It’s amazing to me that it seems so long ago—but it isn’t. It seems so far away only because these attacks have become so commonplace around the world that we simply move on. I mean, this was truly horrible, and we rarely, if ever, talk about it much. Perhaps because, since then, so many other things have happened. And I write this just two months after the Vegas mass shooting—the most well-planned crim
e, in my opinion, since 9/11. Yet we’ve all moved on. Are we growing a numbness to ghoulish behavior? So that now it just takes more death and destruction to shock us? Anyway, back to the mono . . . and you know, if it’s a terror attack, it will end up being about guns.
Now, the left labels Orlando as gun violence. Where did they learn this?
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We are also going to have to make sure that we think about the risks we are willing to take by being so lax in how we make very powerful firearms available to people in this country.
HILLARY CLINTON (D), PRESUMPTIVE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE: I believe weapons of war have no place on our streets. We have to make it harder for people who should not have those weapons of war. And that may not stop every shooting or every terrorist attack, but it will stop some and it will save lives, and it will protect our first responders.
But if Orlando is gun violence, then what was 9/11, box cutter violence? Shall we blame hardware stores for that act? Pressure cookers caused the Boston bombing? Shall we blame Crate and Barrel?
I hate to bring in Crate and Barrel into such a grim topic. I love that store. Everything is reasonably priced and the sales staff is beyond helpful!
Blaming an inanimate object absolves you of actual guts. It wasn’t the availability of weapons that caused these acts. It was a hateful, murderous, homophobic, misogynistic ideology, one that sees murdering gays as an act of compassion. And it’s a belief ignored by multiculturalists.
Islamism has killed gays for a while. So lefties, if you never spoke out about that, shut up about guns.
So, if we condemn radical Islam—a belief that deems homosexuality a sin punishable by death—it’s the left that then labels us as bigoted! Then, when a terror attack kills dozens at a gay club, they shift the argument to gun control to skirt past the homophobic hatred of jihadists. They can’t name the culprit, because that would violate their politics: It’s always our fault—never anyone else’s.
Now the Pope is lashing out at guns.
But if the Vatican were as unarmed as Pulse, the club, the Pope would not be alive. But ISIS knows that the Pope is surrounded by a military force consisting of one-hundred-plus ex–Swiss soldiers, who carry muskets but also submachine guns, with heavily armed agents nearby.
If that club, Pulse, had 3 percent of the Pope’s arms, he wouldn’t be lecturing on guns.
The Pope complained that aid and food to poor countries are often blocked, but guns are not. Doesn’t he see that, if it weren’t for armed men from our country, most aid would get nowhere?
He says he’s prolife. Not here, I’m afraid.
I think this is the weakest pope we’ve ever had in the history of popes, and I include Olivia Pope from Scandal [though she is extremely tough]. How can a man be so high up, and so absolutely naïve? I mean, this guy has absolutely no idea how poor countries get their aid. If soldiers aren’t there to keep the peace—no one gets a piece of cheese. And if there were no guards in the Vatican, if there were no armed security along the pathways to the Pope, the Pope would be toast.
Anyone with common sense understands the trade-off: Owning a gun protects the people you love, but guns can also end up in the wrong hands. That’s the deal we made. Pointing it out as a risk rarely advances your gun criticism, because we’ve assumed the risk already.
June 15, 2016
This monologue was also written after the Orlando attack.
When Islamic terror strikes, blossoms of blame erupt. Rolling Stone blames guns, of course, the tool a terrorist uses, rather than the terrorist himself. So better to disarm than defend. No thanks.
Guns don’t cause terror, but they can surely stop it.
Trump blames terrorists, but The View blames Trump.
Huffington Post and others somehow blame Christians; yeah, Christians. Their point is, it’s not just Muslims who are bad, it’s this guy who won’t bake cakes. This is what identity politics has done. An attack on Americans used to be an attack on Americans. Now we just can’t hold it together, even our president seems more worked up over reactions than over realities.
Here’s President Obama: “The main contribution some of my friends on the other side of the aisle have made in the fight against ISIL is to criticize this administration, and me, for not using the phrase ‘radical Islam.’ What exactly would using this label accomplish? Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away. This is a political distraction.”
Question: Would specifying a serious illness as cancer be distracting? Um, no . . . it kinda helps to clarify things, don’t it?
Hmm. Yeah, he’s ticked. But it’s us who should be mad. Here’s more blame from the New York Times. You’re going to love this. “While the precise motivation for the rampage remains unclear, it is evident that Mr. Mateen was driven by hatred towards gays and lesbians. This is the state of American politics, driven too often by Republican politicians who see prejudice as something to exploit.”
You gotta throw up at this point. This may be the precise point future historians will identity as the New York Times’ final break with reality. Who could have predicted they would morph into a campus humor mag? The only difference—the latter is actual satire. Also note: Mateen may not have even known the place was a gay club when he chose it. He had targeted other nongay options prior to his attack.
This is amazing. See, it’s Republicans, it’s not terrorists. The orgy of blame generated by competing identities obscures a gleeful enemy that now nails soft targets at will. Deflection is denial, as we can’t admit the problem, which is—Islamism. The consequence: The fight is not engaged, it goes on longer, more people die. The sooner we admit the problem, the sooner we can get help. Send everyone to “Islamophobia-phobia Anonymous” to get over their fear of being called Islamophobic because it’s not just fear, it’s going to be our doom.
One of the great victories accompanying Trump’s election was the ability to call evil by its name—followed by the swift and brutal decimation of ISIS. Sometimes you gotta name something before you can kill it. See “polio” and “Salk, Jonas.” And Trump, in this case, followed through. By humiliating ISIS, we removed their only selling point to new converts: that ISIS members were fierce fighters, refusing to surrender until death—bent on the inevitable establishment of an Islamic state. When they were crushed, it was amazing how many of these fearless martyrs surrendered. It was the public relations blow necessary to stem the conversion of losers into terrorists. No one wants to join a losing team. Well, except for the line outside Jeff Zucker’s office.
So how was ISIS so quickly decimated after Trump took office? Well, we had the men and the machinery, but what was missing was the “go-ahead,” which is the will to tell everyone that it’s okay to kill the bad guys!
It was missing no more—I refer to this Facebook comment by senior enlisted adviser to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Army Command Sergeant Major John Wayne Troxell, who said, “If they surrender, we will safeguard them to their detainee facility cell, provide them chow, a cot and due process. . . . HOWEVER, if they choose not to surrender, then we will kill them with extreme prejudice, whether that be through security force assistance, by dropping bombs on them, shooting them in the face, or beating them to death with our entrenching tools.”
In a nice reminder that war is not a game of nude Twister, a leader told troops that if ISIS didn’t surrender, they should feel free to beat ’em to death with a shovel. A man after my own heart, while stopping the beating of theirs.
June 20, 2016
Again, below you’ll find an example of our government trying to cloud over the link between Islamic radicalism and terror. Islamism has no problems boasting of this connection, but our leaders would rather talk about other “assertions” rather than face the politically incorrect fact that their cowardly tolerance has led us to this grim juncture.
Yesterday, Attorney General Loretta Lynch said they would only release a partial transcript of the
Orlando 911 calls. My word, I wonder, what could they possibly leave out?
LORETTA LYNCH, ATTORNEY GENERAL: What we’re not going to do is further proclaim this individual’s pledges of allegiance to terrorist groups, and further his propaganda. We will hear him talk about some of those things, but we are not going to hear him make assertions of allegiance on that. This will be audio, this will a printed transcript, but it will begin to capture the back-and-forth between him and the negotiators.
But after much outcry, they caved, releasing the whole transcript, claiming the controversy was becoming a “distraction,” distraction being another word for “embarrassment.”
So what’s the lesson? While the terrorist should be forgotten, its link to Islamism should not.
I’m against releasing 911 calls, because that violates the privacy of victims and their families. But if you are going to release this one, don’t leave out the key parts. Those people were killed because of radical Islam.
Removing that from the call is like removing the shark from Jaws or the Nazis from Schindler’s List.
And what if the killer hadn’t mentioned ISIS, but the KKK, would this even be an issue? Today, identity trumps security, which brings us to, again, “Islamophobia-phobia,” that accusatory hall pass to horror.
What if the terrorist’s name was Joe Smith?
It’s not.
So they focus on guns, not a death cult that infects the planet like a growing malignancy.
It’s like blaming arson not on the arsonist, but on fire.
We’re told many times how the left loves science. So here’s some science: Islamism preaches the murder of infidels. Then if an Islamist murders—by his doctrine—infidels; I think that’s cause and effect.