Nothing new at the zoo, other than some possible anti-war mishmash
In the past few months, I'd read a bit of news about Brian Vaughan's "Pride of Baghdad", said to be based on a true incident of when four lions escaped from the zoo in Baghdad during the US Army's shelling of Saddam's gang there. Of course, I had no idea what to make of it until now, not just because I couldn't find any copies of it, but also because the newspapers that spoke about it predictably wouldn't offer any deeper insight.
Now, however, having stumbled upon the following entry from Comic Overload, I'm beginning to get the suspicion that Vaughan's book is anything but Animal Farm:
See, that's what's disturbing about this cryptic text - as with quite a few other books of this sort, the writer isn't making clear what exactly his complaints are about, resulting in something akin to moral equivalency, one of the worst forms of psychological warfare this world has ever known. Moral equivalency is by far one of the cleverest ways of covering ones tracks in making a moonbat statement, because you can't tell if what they're up to is good or bad. It's a perfect blur of the differences between good and evil, or even the simple colors of black and white.
And pondering all this, I have to wonder if Vaughan really is writing a camouflaged anti-war message, using animals as a metaphor for other, more deeper, things in Iraq.
I notice that Vaughan also signed copies of his book at the Arab American National Museum in Dearborn, Michigan, aka Dearbornistan. (Yet there's no mention if he ever did the same at a museum or any site dedicated to America's soldiers.) And the AANM has connections to ACCESS (Arab Community Center for Economic and Social Services) and its leader Ismael Ahmed, who are anti-Israel and support Hezbollah and Hamas. Not to mention that they even once had an anti-Israel exhibit featured there courtesy of Najah Bazzy, a nurse who declared in 2004 that she was "embarrassed to be an American." And Vaughan goes to spend his book-signing time over there?
All this tells me that my concerns that Pride of Baghdad could be an anti-war statement condemning the war in Iraq could have something to them, and that Vaughan is probably not a writer whose works I'd want to waste time on.
And it certainly does explain why I'm glad that Saddam was sent to hang from the rope for his sins!
Open trackbacks: Pirates' Cove, Pursuing Holiness, The Trouble With Angels.
Now, however, having stumbled upon the following entry from Comic Overload, I'm beginning to get the suspicion that Vaughan's book is anything but Animal Farm:
the end of the book feels like Vaughan is trying to make a statement without really making one.Very interesting. It does sound like a cleverly and carefully concealed anti-war statement blaming the US for enabling the beasts to break out. Plus, the end of the book features the following text:
[...]
Part of me feels like the book is Vaughan’s own commentary on war; that it is bloody and random. Another part of me feels as though it’s Vaughan’s disgust with our own US military, as the murder of the lions was portrayed pretty graphically and then the panel of the US Flag badge shown prominently afterwards. The dialogue of these soldiers seemed to indicate otherwise though. Like I said, I was confused.
In April of 2003, four lions escaped the Baghdad Zoo during the bombing of IraqHmm. Something very odd about that part too. It's not clear to me - not at this stage anyway - what Vaughan's referring to when he speaks about the "other casualties". Does he mean any innocent civilians in the city? Or does he mean Saddam's own army? Or, does he mean - gasp! - the prisoners in Abu Graib?
The starving animals were eventually shot and killed by U.S soldiers
There were other casualties as well.
See, that's what's disturbing about this cryptic text - as with quite a few other books of this sort, the writer isn't making clear what exactly his complaints are about, resulting in something akin to moral equivalency, one of the worst forms of psychological warfare this world has ever known. Moral equivalency is by far one of the cleverest ways of covering ones tracks in making a moonbat statement, because you can't tell if what they're up to is good or bad. It's a perfect blur of the differences between good and evil, or even the simple colors of black and white.
And pondering all this, I have to wonder if Vaughan really is writing a camouflaged anti-war message, using animals as a metaphor for other, more deeper, things in Iraq.
I notice that Vaughan also signed copies of his book at the Arab American National Museum in Dearborn, Michigan, aka Dearbornistan. (Yet there's no mention if he ever did the same at a museum or any site dedicated to America's soldiers.) And the AANM has connections to ACCESS (Arab Community Center for Economic and Social Services) and its leader Ismael Ahmed, who are anti-Israel and support Hezbollah and Hamas. Not to mention that they even once had an anti-Israel exhibit featured there courtesy of Najah Bazzy, a nurse who declared in 2004 that she was "embarrassed to be an American." And Vaughan goes to spend his book-signing time over there?
All this tells me that my concerns that Pride of Baghdad could be an anti-war statement condemning the war in Iraq could have something to them, and that Vaughan is probably not a writer whose works I'd want to waste time on.
And it certainly does explain why I'm glad that Saddam was sent to hang from the rope for his sins!
Open trackbacks: Pirates' Cove, Pursuing Holiness, The Trouble With Angels.
Labels: politics
