Roundup of comics creators' comments on jihad attack in Paris
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 comes 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.
Sad news to wake up to: my heart goes to Paris to the families of cartoonists & other victims of this barbaric attack pic.twitter.com/R9rPXtxdB6
— FrancescoFrancavilla (@f_francavilla) January 7, 2015
I think he's got the best take here so far. But then, we have Ron Marz, who first says:
Slaughtered over cartoons? Monstrous and insane. http://t.co/YILGfeqZ9Z #CharlieHebdo
— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) January 7, 2015
Yes, he's correct that it was monstrous and barbaric. But then, he says:
If you think your religion tells you to kill someone, you're not religious. You're insane. #JeSuisCharlie
— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) January 7, 2015
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:
The usual suspects will say "where are the Muslims condemning this?" All major Muslim inst. already have. Your media doesn't cover it.
— G. Willow Wilson (@GWillowWilson) January 7, 2015
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:
Reading about Charlie Hebdo. Thank you for saying this, Salman. RT @SalmanRushdie: .#JeSuisCharlie http://t.co/f9QQfP62tp
— Neil Gaiman (@neilhimself) January 7, 2015
How important are free speech and satire? Important enough that people will murder others to silence the kind of speech they don't like.
— Neil Gaiman (@neilhimself) January 7, 2015
Years ago I wrote this, on why Freedom of Speech needs to apply to the stuff you don't like, as well as what you do: http://t.co/Ky0NMnz9tb
— Neil Gaiman (@neilhimself) January 7, 2015
.@SalmanRushdie's statement on Charlie Hebdo murders is down at PEN, so you should read it at http://t.co/jvOXM4RHXR
— Neil Gaiman (@neilhimself) January 7, 2015
He is making some worthy arguments here, and I think he wrote this one...
Watching some people coming on my twitter feed to attack cartoonists, or satire, or Charlie Hebdo for being offensive, with my jaw dropped.
— Neil Gaiman (@neilhimself) January 7, 2015
...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:
I RTd the @ShettyShet tweet to show what kinds of responses I was seeing here, and to give context to why I posted http://t.co/Ky0NMnz9tb
— Neil Gaiman (@neilhimself) January 7, 2015
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:
Ideas are more dangerous. RT @cog_ink: It's a hell of a time we live in, when men with guns feel threatened by men with a pen and a brush.
— Neil Gaiman (@neilhimself) January 7, 2015
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:
I agree with @neilhimself about the absolutes of freedom of expression.
— Paul_Cornell (@Paul_Cornell) January 7, 2015
I also think that satirists should fear only condemnation, not death.
— Paul_Cornell (@Paul_Cornell) January 7, 2015
Unfortunately, he goes on to say:
Cartoonists drawing the Prophet in response to the Paris attack would be horrible, a slap to *every* Muslim, a spur to extremist recruiting.
— Paul_Cornell (@Paul_Cornell) January 7, 2015
I just got some full on anti-Muslim racism in my feed, mentioning pork, you know the sort of stuff.
— Paul_Cornell (@Paul_Cornell) January 7, 2015
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:
@Paul_Cornell Er.....you're not actually defending freedom of speech. You seem to think it's fine as long as no one suffers hurt feelings.
— Lyndon Rosser (@LyndonRosser) January 7, 2015
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:
Shocked, saddened and angered by the news...Cabu and Wolinski among the dead as well as Charlie's editor-in-chief.
— David Hine (@HineDavid) January 7, 2015
#CharlieHebdo This is what they died for. Translation "Do not make fun." Retweet if you love free speech. pic.twitter.com/mYdjfKEJy7
— David Hine (@HineDavid) January 7, 2015
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:
The greatest and most harmful lie of the 21st century is that to combat terrorists, we must become terrorists, to combat hate we must hate.
— Tom Brevoort (@TomBrevoort) January 8, 2015
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:
Urgh, just heard about the attacks. Terrible.
— GAIL SIMONE (@GailSimone) January 7, 2015
If she comprehends what went on, she's done the right thing. Then there's the animator and occasional comics writer Paul Dini:
Today any of us who ever expressed an opinion with paper and pen stand with Charlie Hebdo. #JeSuisCharlie
— Paul_Dini (@Paul_Dini) January 7, 2015
Next is J. Scott Campbell:
#JeSuisCharlie Weapons of Choice http://t.co/NvDop7EItE
— J. Scott Campbell (@JScottCampbell) January 7, 2015
Then, there's Greg Rucka:
Today is an even better day to create than usual, and every day is a good day to create. #JeSuisCharlie
— Greg Rucka (@ruckawriter) January 7, 2015
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:
People died today for telling jokes. #CharlieHebdo
— BRIAN MICHAEL BENDIS (@BRIANMBENDIS) January 7, 2015
Well that sure is amazing a man who's more or less a leftist is willing to show solidarity. Next comes Geoff Johns:
Thinking #France
— Geoff Johns (@geoffjohns) January 7, 2015
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:
When I was younger, the first and best subversion put in my head was from cartoonists. #CharlieHebdo is proof why that power is vital.
— Brad Meltzer (@bradmeltzer) January 7, 2015
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:
If your god is so awesomely powerful, he doesn't need your interference or vengeance.
— Ralph RAGS Morales (@RagsMorales) January 7, 2015
Now this leftist is willing to say something that makes sense? Next comes longtime lefty Gerry Conway:
The definition of cowardly and evil: Terror Attack on Charlie Hebdo Newspaper in Paris Kills 12, via @nytimes http://t.co/0DfREkR6cw
— Gerry Conway (@gerryconway) January 7, 2015
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:
@PatrickZircher Agreed. And people are of course going to blame ALL Muslims when most are just as repulsed as us.
— Daniel Kalban (@DanielKalban) January 7, 2015
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:
#KirbyDelauter and #CharlieHebdo are different ends of the spectrum, but both show the importance of Free Speech against bullies.
— David Gallaher (@DavidGallaher) January 7, 2015
I don't know enough about Gallaher, but he seems to have a good enough take on the topic. Next is artist Tony Daniel:
#CharlieHebdo RIP to the cartoonists and other staff and police who were killed by terrorists in #Paris. Let's hope the gunmen are caught
— Tony S Daniel (@TonyDanielx2) January 7, 2015
Daniel's comment is pretty good too. For the record, the jihadists were identified by authorities. Then comes artist Phil Jiminez:
22 cartoons from artists responding to the murders in France: #CharlieHebdo http://t.co/OmvgQhprhI
— Phil Jimenez (@Philjimeneznyc) January 7, 2015
Jiminez links to several cartoons drawn as reactions to the bloodbath. Then comes artist/writer Billy Tucci:
C'est dur d'être aimé par des cons...
— William Tucci (@BillyTucci) January 7, 2015
I pray journalists around the globe will finally come to grips as to what is happening and be brave enough to... http://t.co/rVIDUyzEEv
— William Tucci (@BillyTucci) January 7, 2015
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.Labels: Europe and Asia, islam and jihad, moonbat artists, moonbat writers, politics, terrorism, violence
"Tucci is a conservative, so his comments surely have to be the most reliable here."
This opinion is telling. Conservatism is not truth. Liberalism is not truth. The truth is the truth. You'll never find it if you are predisposed to believe that one side is the "reliable" one.
Posted by
Anonymous |
7:26 AM
Yes, you've got a point.
Posted by
Avi Green |
7:43 AM
It may be significant that G. Willow Wilson refers to American media as "your media" rather than "our media."
Posted by
Anonymous |
11:48 AM
"Your" media could also be referring to French media.
Posted by
Anonymous |
6:47 PM
"Your media" could refer to media in Western civilization in general.
And "the usual suspects" are now glossing over the tragedy. Obama, Kerry, and Howard Dean all refused to identify the killers as Muslims. The New York Times is fretting over whether the incident could fuel "Islamophobia" and provoke "hate crimes" against Muslims. Some commentators are insisting that the killers are not "real" Muslims, because "true" Islam is really a peace-loving religion. And the various comic book writers and artists are warning against rushing to judgment or jumping to conclusions, and they insist that the majority of Muslims are as horrified as we are. And they say that we can't hold all Muslims responsible for the actions of a few extremists.
Of course, these are the same commentators who say that all men share the blame for rape, and that all white people are responsible for racism.
Posted by
Anonymous |
12:05 PM