No, George Washington was a FREEDOM FIGHTER.

Or something.

But I see your point. There are shades of grey between terrorist and hero, and in many cases it’s hard to define what ends justify what means.

But in the SPECIFIC case of the Al Queda, I’m just not seeing the shades of gray.

Well, the English weren't to impressed with Washington and his tactics, and considered him to be an evil monster.
You look at Osama that way, but he's followers, and a good chunk of the world, rightly or wrongly, see him as you see Washington - a hero sticking it to the evil empire.

I get why you personally are pissed, and hate him, however, when the response to crashing a plane into a building and killing a bunch innocents, is to bomb a country and kill a lot of innocents, you can start to see why he does have his followers, and they don't think they're evil.

And, geez, feels like I’m arguing the other side here all of a sudden, but the Al Queda are not the Nazis.

And you can certainly argue that the US was complicit in the rise to power of both organizations. (Not a major factor in either case, though.)

The US played a rather big part, both financially and motivationally in the rise of Al-Qaeda.

Do I think every specific member of the Al Queda is evil? Nah. But, like the Nazis, they’re serving an evil cause. And it’s REALLY hard for me to sympathize with folks who are serving under team evil.

Which could be a moral failing on my part.

Well, you pay taxes to the country bombing people in their part of the world, which you admit in the case of Iraq is probably wrong, so to them you're a player on team evil.

Why is your point of view automatically more valid than their's?

But I’m perfectly comfortable defining them as evil in the symbolic language of superhero funnybooks.

Yes, but if you start to do that it simplifies the whole situation on an instinctual level.
It's just propaganda, which is a tool to stop people from thinking to hard on the subject.
If you accept them as an evil mass, instead of people - and I don't just mean the terrorists, but their supporters as well (like all of Pakistan for instance) - then what hope is there for any kind of reconciliation or peace?
You would have to bomb the hell out of them and beat them into submission - which would in turn justify the actions of the terrorists.

But these particular terrorists were heroes in the 80’s and 90’s, backed by our governments, back when Russia were heroes.

George Washington was a terrorist.

Micheal Collins was a terrorist.

Can you see where the problem comes in?
It’s not a black and white matter, and these things never are.

No, George Washington was a FREEDOM FIGHTER.

Or something.

But I see your point. There are shades of grey between terrorist and hero, and in many cases it's hard to define what ends justify what means.

But in the SPECIFIC case of the Al Queda, I'm just not seeing the shades of gray.

Hitler may have been evil, but not all Nazi’s were - remember, Germany was starving when he came to power, due to levies fined upon them by the other countries in WW1.
So while he may be as close to generic evil leader as the worlds ever seen, don’t forget that people followed him and committed evil in his name, because he was helping them whilst we starved them.

And, geez, feels like I'm arguing the other side here all of a sudden, but the Al Queda are not the Nazis.

And you can certainly argue that the US was complicit in the rise to power of both organizations. (Not a major factor in either case, though.)

Do I think every specific member of the Al Queda is evil? Nah. But, like the Nazis, they're serving an evil cause. And it's REALLY hard for me to sympathize with folks who are serving under team evil.

Which could be a moral failing on my part.

But I'm perfectly comfortable defining them as evil in the symbolic language of superhero funnybooks.

T… Like many people who share your views, you have a serious persecution complex.

Great nonrebuttal there.

Markandrew… Your last comment? Man. I always brace myself before reading something you’ve written, because I know that in the process of expressing what are mostly clearly thought out in, inteeligent ideas you are very likely to Bring The Dumb, but just… wow. You’ve really surpassed yourself. Way to reduce an attempt at political debate to empty emotive posturing.

As opposed to reducing the debate to snide, condescending insults? Yeah, much better.

And I am absolutely fine with the reductive allegory terrorists = evil.

Because it’s true.

But these particular terrorists were heroes in the 80's and 90's, backed by our governments, back when Russia were heroes.

George Washington was a terrorist.

Micheal Collins was a terrorist.

Can you see where the problem comes in?
It's not a black and white matter, and these things never are.

Hitler may have been evil, but not all Nazi's were - remember, Germany was starving when he came to power, due to levies fined upon them by the other countries in WW1.
So while he may be as close to generic evil leader as the worlds ever seen, don't forget that people followed him and committed evil in his name, because he was helping them whilst we starved them.

This simplistic approach may be caused by some system shock because on 9/11 this sort of thing finally happened in your country, and you have every right to be pissed, but to try turn it into a black and white matter is wrong.

Sure do hope Batman's on our side in this one.

We shat on them, they shat on us, so we shat on them again… can you figure out what the next step will be?

As far as I can tell the next step is we continue to ignore the Al Quaeda and bomb the fuck out of Iran.

I could go on, but the situation is convoluted, and currently un-resolved, that wishing for Batman punching Osama as some sort of release is juvenile,

Well, yeah. I'm fine with that.

But superheroes are, at their core, pretty juvenile too. And I've still got a lot of unresolved, shocked anger caused by the 9/11 attacks. And I see the argument that this is trivializing the issue, but I don't really buy it.

Superheroes represent our best aspects. They're like myth: They champion, maybe even define, the morality of our culture.

And terrorists ARE, in my view, evil.

So I think superheroes are much more complex than the reductive allegory Omar proposes. And I am absolutely fine with the reductive allegory terrorists = evil.

Because it's true.

If it makes you feel any better I'd be just fine with Batman punching several high ranking American govt. officials in the face as well.

and only plays into the Bush administrations lies that this is a winnable ‘war on terror’.

This I don't see.

Now I dunno if the "War on Terror" is winnable or not.

I'm not saying I know how it could be won, and I certainly don't see America doing much to win it if it is winnable.

But I don't think anyone looks to superheroes for real world solutions. (I hope.) Their purpose is to define cultural values of good. And I have no problem - hell, actively encourage - contrasting them with terrorists. Who in my morally absoutist world have made a choice to do evil.

But, yeah, I do ABSOLUTELY see America vs. the Al Qaeda as us vs. them. Some big shit went down here ’bout six years ago. Like, methodically planned mass murder of innocents big. You can probably Google it.

Yeah I came on strong in my post, but seriously dude?
That's the exact sort of thinking I was talking about.

We shat on them, they shat on us, so we shat on them again... can you figure out what the next step will be?
Oh, and bombing Afghanistan?
Any fucking evidence it got the people involved with the 9/11 attack, or did it just remove the top row of people in charge of a dictatorship that America, and the rest of the world, funded and pushed to get in place?
Because last I saw, the pratt who runs the/represents the outfit (I would say terrorists, but a decade ago they were freedom fighters, so I'm not sure) is still running around, only now he's seen as a hero/ally to people who already didn't like America.

I could go on, but the situation is convoluted, and currently un-resolved, that wishing for Batman punching Osama as some sort of release is juvenile, and only plays into the Bush administrations lies that this is a winnable 'war on terror'.

In fact, any comic that did have Batman punching Osama, would only work to satire the attitude of America that fighting this 'war' is the same as fighting WW2.

T... Like many people who share your views, you have a serious persecution complex. Please try to remember that the planet is basically being run by a guy who agrees with most of your opinions. Stop trying to paint yours conservatism as placing you within an oppressed minority.

Markandrew... Your last comment? Man. I always brace myself before reading something you've written, because I know that in the process of expressing what are mostly clearly thought out in, inteeligent ideas you are very likely to Bring The Dumb, but just... wow. You've really surpassed yourself. Way to reduce an attempt at political debate to empty emotive posturing.

It’s this sort of us vs them idea that got America the joy’s of the past few years, and also doing things, no matter how silly, ‘just to feel better’.

Oh, I completely agree with you. Iraq and Hussein, no matter how evil-in-their-own-way, were not them.

Nor are any of the innocent Afghanis American troops killed. And, yeah, I think there is a moral obligation to recognize anytime my country kills civilians.

But, yeah, I do ABSOLUTELY see America vs. the Al Qaeda as us vs. them. Some big shit went down here 'bout six years ago. Like, methodically planned mass murder of innocents big. You can probably Google it.

I really want to see Batman punch Osama in the face. I think seeing “our” symbol beat up “their” symbol would make me feel better.

Then you're pretty sad, and in complete denial of reality.
It's this sort of us vs them idea that got America the joy's of the past few years, and also doing things, no matter how silly, 'just to feel better'.
Us vs Them led to carpet bombings in Afghanistan, which led to lots of dead innocents, and lots of guilty one's being able to escape.
Making people feel better is what got America into Iraq, or at least why the people swallowed it so easy*, and why the there's still enough support to stay there 'to get the job done', even though all independant data shows that it just keeps getting worse.

And isn't uncle sam 'your' symbol, not Batman?
I can draw a pic of him beating Osama up if you want, but after that, stay out of the room when adults are talking.
That said, after all his secret toys going out of whack and trying to kill people, and his brain washing etc, maybe Batman is a good analogy for America.

I'd be more interested in a story, if there had to be one - and as Miller hadn't started it, last I heard, and polls shows peoples opinions have changed since he announced it - wouldn't it be better for Batman to go over to punch him, and then realise that by punching him he only helps him, and instead uses Wayne money to educate the people who are under him, to encourage them to rise up (on their own) and take power away from those who believe in such things?
Or is that a little to hard to have a wank fantasy to?

*And did nothing when your country broke from a UN ruling - I seem to remember disobeying the UN to be a sign of evil in comic books...

"Context matters. A lot."

I agree... to me that pretty much boils it down.

And also, "Hitler, Stalin, and Mao aren’t so much secular or atheistic, but rather they present the party itself as the religion"

I agree. That calls to mind a lot of thoughts about what can be called a religion... But perhaps we've digressed to far already.

Interesting discussion, overall. Thanks, guys!

I'd argue that people like Hitler, Stalin, and Mao aren't so much secular or atheistic, but rather they present the party itself as the religion. To the extent that religion is tolerated, it's only where it can be made to serve the purposes of the State.

Traditional religion represents a competing source of authority, which these governments can't tolerate. But they are very adept at coopting the forms and methods of religion to serve their purposes.

Anyhow, secular/religious becomes a very hazy distinction at this level. The impulse that leads a fundamentalist Muslim to report a neighbor to the Morality Police for showing some ankle is, I think, essentially the same as the impulse that led an East German Communist to report a neighbor to the Stasi for listening to the BBC World Service. Different rules, of course, but the same drive to enforce behavior in the community.

Not necessarily. If it were that simple, then depictions of Dracula risk stereotyping the Eastern Orthodox and Romanians.

Dracula stories often *do* stereotype the Romanians, as poor, simple, superstitious-yet-wise country folk, but that's very different from the depiction of Dracula himself.

It's not the depiction of Bin Laden that is important. It's whether he's the only representation of a group. If there are sympathetic figures shown as well, either as victims or as proactive allies of the hero, then Bin Laden and his faction are clearly not stereotypes of the overall population.

A story set in Gotham in which the only Muslims are the terrorists, would be a lot worse than a story in which Batman goes to a city called 'Quotham' in Northwest Frontier Province of Pakistan, meets up with Commissioner Hakim Al-Gordon and a moderate Muslim reformer who is then killed by Al Qaeda, providing fresh evidence which allows Batman, with some assistance from Al-Gordon, to track down Bin Laden to his lair.

Context matters. A lot.

First of there are liberal Christians who don't recognize the dogma spewed by today's politicians. Also, your statement leaves an impression that Christian values permeates US life as Islam does with life in Iran. That is clearly not the case. As a Christian who has worked in entertainment and the arts, I have learned to "stay in the closet" so to speak, to spare myself situations where I accused of supporting the Crusades, Republicans, of anything else that was done under the guise of Christianity.

Having said that, it brings up a difference between Bin Laden and Hitler. Hitler represented a secular idea, a form of government. Bin Laden represents a form of government and a form of religion. And any responsible representation of Bin Laden would make the distinction between the actual beliefs of Islam and their use as political propaganda.

Portraying Bin Laden as a super-villain therefore risks stereotyping both Muslims and Middle-Easterners.

So I don't recommend it.

Jon H.'s response to this was far more eloquent than mine, and I agree with it as well.

The point I was going to make in response is... So what if its a double standard. When you're in power and can do pretty much whatever you want you invite and deserve any and all criticism you may get. Its what keeps you honest and on the right track. In the US, Christianity is the establishment therefore there is more leeway when it comes to its ridicule. Same with 'conservatives'.

Um, might that be because the Batman book hasn't shipped yet so there's very little to go on other than belligerent hype from the author, whereas the BP criticism was based on actual published work?

"But you basically think that tragedy and persecution exempts one from rampant stereotyping, while having privilege means another is not exempt from it. That’s a double standard."

Um, the neocons are willfully responsible for the deaths of 500,000 to a million or so Iraqis. They were calling for this war since the 1990s, and many of those people became the specific bad actors most responsible for the war and it's tragically incompetence. Today they are calling for war on Iran. It's not a double standard to hold them responsible for positions they willingly held and actions they willingly took or supported.

It's not stereotyping when they all sign their names to freakin' insane militaristic pipedreams.

I suspect an amusing depiction of Hitler getting punched in the nose - and by a character created, written, and drawn by Jews - might have been a nice morale booster for the people in the Warsaw Ghetto prior to the final uprising - which was almost certainly a no-win situation.

When the options are a suicidal poorly armed uprising against overwhelming force, or a one-way ticket to the camps, I'm not sure what the practical, adult solution would be.

Human psychology is perhaps more complex and robust than you give it credit for.