The government has kept you safe!

Rich Lowry gets his federal kneepads:

There has been one constant in the five years since the terror attacks of 9/11 — there has been no follow-up attack in the United States. It is the most blessed non-event in recent American history. Of course, that could change in an awful instant. It is nonetheless the signal accomplishment in the war on terror. While the smoke was still clearing from downtown Manhattan, no one would have said that the fight against terror should be judged on whether the U.S. is popular abroad or able to spread democracy. The standard was avoiding another attack in the U.S., and by that standard, the war on terror is a tentative success.

There are rival explanations for this success….

I note that he leaves out my explanation for this “success”… every time there is a terror attack, whether it is planes mysteriously falling apart over Long Island, Muslims shooting Jews in Seattle or massive explosions at oil refineries, it is loudly announced that what looks rather like a terrorist attack was, in fact, a mirage, an accident, nothing to look at, carry on about your business. Furthermore, it is an insult to the passengers of the Shoe Bomber flight to credit the government for their actions in saving their own lives.

By Lowry’s own standard, then, the war on terror is already a failure. Considering the 96,000 Muslims imported in 2005 courtesy of that same government, one has to wonder how much longer it will be before the Three Monkeys will drop this line of argument just as they dropped the once-popular German Occupation analogy eighteen months ago.

Stretched beyond all usefulness

Papapete clings to neoconnery:

The… statement is rather disingenuous. After all, the countries where Sharia is the law of the land are among the most oppresive in the world, and the jihadists are working violently toward imposition of Sharia on the whole world. It is therefore reasonable to assume that if the jihadists are successful the governments they form will meet the second definition of “fascist”. It’s thus not a stretch to use that definition to describe them now. The only argument is whether the term is useful or not.

Except for the last statement, Papapete’s logic is spurious and the fact that it requires the same mental and semantic gymnastics used by academics to argue for the whiteness of black and so forth should have given him pause.

The secondary definition of fascist is “control”, not “a desire for control”. Since the jihadists are violently opposed to those currently in control where Sharia is the law of the land, that definition of fascist could only be applied to “friendly” governments like Saudi Arabia, not the enemy jihadists. As I mentioned two weeks ago, the U.S. government fits the first definition of Fascist more precisely than do the jihadists, the same is true as well of this secondary definition.

Moreover, the term is utterly useless, as this vastly expanded definition of fascist applies equally well to Genghis Khan, Shalmaneser I, King Philip IV of France, Moctezuma II and Abraham Lincoln. It serves no purpose except to offer intellectual cover for those who support the goals of the jihad but not its methods.

So, to use the term “Islamo-fascist” is to publicly reveal oneself to be either a historical ignoramus, a mendacious propagandist or a mental sloven.

Which one applies to you?