Thursday, January 08, 2015


A repulsive bloodbath took place at the office of the Charlie Hebdo weekly in Paris. All over some mere cartoons satirizing the "prophet" Muhammed. What do any comics creators have to say? Here's one by cartoonist Francesco Francavilla:

I think he's got the best take here so far. But then, we have Ron Marz, who first says:

Yes, he's correct that it was monstrous and barbaric. But then, he says:

Uh, Marz, I don't suppose you'd like to research the Koran to see how the religion those barbarians worship does tell them? Have you seen Pamela Geller's advertisements featuring Sura 3:151, which says, "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers", and Sura 47:4, which says, "When you meet the unbelievers, smite their necks, then, when you have made wide slaughter among them, tie fast the bonds; then set them free, either by grace or ransom, till the war lays down its loads"? It would appear Marz has chosen to side with political correctness yet again. What next, will he start telling apostates from Islam they're nuts to think the religion they've left calls for their extermination, when Sura 2:217 and 4:89 prove otherwise? Next is G. Willow Wilson:

Condemnation alone is insufficient. You have to be willing to acknowledge what verses the Koran contains. Otherwise, you remain unconvincing. And what does she mean by "your media"? American, even though she lives in the USA? Ahem. The LA Times, a very prominent publication, reported it, and the WSJ also reported that Muslim leaders allegedly condemn the attack, but they fall back on the same old complaints of anti-Muslim sentiments, without admitting there's Koranic verses that give reason to worry. But there you have it, contrary to what she's claimed, there are major papers reporting what she says they don't. Next comes Sandman/Books of Magic writer Neil Gaiman:

He is making some worthy arguments here, and I think he wrote this one...

...As a rebuttal to this retweeted comment saying that Charlie Hebdo is a "sexist, racist, homophobic newspaper", because he seems alarmed somebody would try to take attention away from the issue at hand, that defenseless people were murdered over religious beliefs. Gaiman verified this with the following:

Yes, he's right that it's out of place to be making crazy accusations against the paper, very similar to the ones the jihadists were making. However, he also said:

That depends which ones are in focus. If it's Islamofascism, then yes, they are dangerous. In fact, they're deadly. Next, we have British writer Paul Cornell, who first says:

Unfortunately, he goes on to say:

And I thought he stood with Gaiman (whose MO is questionable). Now he lets know his education is so poor, he can't distinguish between religion and race. Somebody else told him:

Yup, that's just it. This was also the same guy who did his own whitewash of Islam in the pages of a Capt. Britain volume several years ago. Now for another UK writer, David Hine:

Amazing the same man who'd written a story depicting Muslims in France as victims using moral equations as cover now speaks out against the same religion he wrote apologia for. But the same cannot be said about Tom Brevoort:

Who said we have to become terrorists and hatemonger? What we do have to do is combat bad religions/ideologies. Brevoort remains as uninformed and stingy as before. We next have Gail Simone:

If she comprehends what went on, she's done the right thing. Then there's the animator and occasional comics writer Paul Dini:

Next is J. Scott Campbell:

Then, there's Greg Rucka:

In that case, I don't suppose he'd be willing to write stories with convincing critiques of Islam? Because until now, he's been occasionally linking to apologists who actually encourage these horrors. Next comes Brian Bendis:

Well that sure is amazing a man who's more or less a leftist is willing to show solidarity. Next is Geoff Johns:

Is he? Then why has he spent much of the past decade writing such alienatingly violent stories that do no favors for victims of terrorism, not to mention one that was apologia for Islam? Next is occasional comics writer and novelist Brad Meltzer, more or less a leftist himself, who said:

I'll be willing to take him more seriously when I see him admitting the story structure for Identity Crisis was a slight to victims of sexual abuse, and a metaphor for 9-11 Trutherism. He's said a few things over the years that don't hold up when you consider a a few items in his portfolio that were little more than apologia. Then there's left-wing artist Rags Morales:

Now this leftist is willing to say something that makes sense? Next comes longtime lefty Gerry Conway:

Well I'm glad this other leftist is willing to say something making sense too. But is he willing to recognize that religious ideology is what drove the savages? Next is Patrick Zircher and Daniel Kalban combined:

While Zircher offers a surprisingly credible response, Kalban fumbles because, while there are moderate Muslims, there is no moderate Islam. And has he ever heard of the word "taqqiya" which means deception, and is a leading tactic under Islam? The point is, you shouldn't take what every Muslim says at face value about the religion itself. (Update: Breitbart London has 12 reasons why people like Kalban are part of the problem.) Next is a writer named David Gallaher:

I don't know enough about Gallaher, but he seems to have a good enough take on the topic. Next is artist Tony Daniel:

Daniel's comment is pretty good too. For the record, the jihadists were identified by authorities. Then comes artist Phil Jiminez:

Jiminez links to several cartoons drawn as reactions to the bloodbath. Then comes artist/writer Billy Tucci:

Tucci is a conservative, so his comments surely have to be the most reliable here.

Mark Hemingway at the Weekly Standard warns, however, that we can't be deceived by the reactions of the press to this horror, because they're cowards, and if so, then we shouldn't take what left-wing comics creators say at face value either. If they really want to prove they abhor this violence, what they can and should do is start writing/drawing stories that unambiguously condemn Islamofascism. They can even republish the Danish Muhammed cartoons as a response, including the one I posted here. Unfortunately, chances are that they'll quietly drop the whole topic within the next week and have no interest in it later on, falling back on their classic disinterest and turn their backs on all the pertinent issues, unwilling to let go of their absurd leanings because they feel their own politicized show must continue without question.

No comments: