I was rereading the comment section of this post yesterday whilst adding it to this one regarding comics writer Mark Millar being a socialist. Keep in mind the first link is from 2006, a little over seven years ago, to be more specific. One of things I complained about in the post was how Millar had Captain America kill his opponent, Colonel Abdul al-Rahman, who's basically an Iranian counterpart to Cap. (In my original post, I referred to al-Rahman as the "MCA," or "Muslim Country Analogue.") And who commented about this? None other than Delaware Liberal's Jason "Trust Fund" Scott:
This is an intersting [sic]post. You seem to be doing the kind of thinking that the writer hoped for. Without any trace of irony you say:*
...but certain characterizations are (or, should be) maintained. Like Cap's purity (or attempted purity) of purpose. Anyone who's anyone would simply not have Capt. America killing a person in cold blood. Unless, of course, he wanted to disparage a certain country!
How much more does it disparage out [sic] country to torture confessions out of people or hold them in solitary confinment [sic] without charging them with any crime?
How is Capt America different from our America when he kills in cold blood? Shouldn't we be more mindful of our national "purity of purpose"? Isn't that the very thing we chucked out the window when we decided that premptive [sic] war was okay? When we decided that Iraqi civilian deaths did not count as much as American civilian deaths?
Some of the "Terrorists" in Gitmo are called "Terrorists" because they are in Gitmo. It is supposed to be the other way around.
If, like Capt America, we set aside our principles for the sake of security, we are no longer America. I know you don;t like to face this reality, but the new habeas corpus rules mean that you are I could be held without being charged is Bush decided that our blogs were threats to national security.
I know you have a lot of faith in Bush not to grab you off the street and toss you in jail - but I don't.
You can see my responses to this at the original link; however, let's talk about *"traces of irony." When this original post was written, George W. Bush had two years left in his presidency, and in one month the Democrats were elected back into the majority of the House of Representatives. In two years, Boss Obama was elected president promising to end much of what Trust Fund complains about above. After five years of Boss Obama's presidency, what have we seen with regards to the above?
Words. Not actions. Words. He. Has. Done. Nothing.
In fact, in many areas, he's upped the ante from the Bush era: Unmanned drone strikes in sovereign countries. Drastic expansion of NSA wiretapping. Continuation of "black site" interrogations. Gitmo still wide open for business. And Trust Fund had "no faith" that Bush administration operatives wouldn't "grab you off the street and toss you in jail"? Tell that to Nakoula Basseley Nakoula. Or, most recently, Dinesh D'Souza. And have I yet mentioned Boss Obama using the IRS as his personal vendetta team?
The DE Liberal (aka the LGOMB, or Local Gaggle of Moonbat Bloggers) site was fledgling in October of 2006, for what it's worth. But head over there now (if you can stand it) and search the archives for Trust Fund's strongly worded complaints about Boss Obama and his continuation of Bush presidency policies. If you can find any. Best of luck.
RELATED: I saw Zero Dark Thirty this past weekend. If you don't know, this is the film that documents the behind-the-scenes machinations in the hunt for Osama bin Laden. Despite what myriad "progressives" may say, the film is fairly plain in stating that the few waterboarded captured terrorists led to valuable information ... and it takes a jab at Boss Obama for ending the practice. However, don't think that G.W. Bush escapes unscathed; when the protagonist (Jessica Chastain) is growing weary of waiting for action to be taken on the bin Laden compound, her CIA boss confronts a Boss Obama official about the delay. The official, and administration, want as precise as possible intel. When the CIA boss says "It's as good as it's gonna get," the official says, "Sorry -- you gave us better odds on WMD being in Iraq."
As for the scenes featuring the waterboarding, if they were designed to elicit sympathy for the victims, it was a failure. Chastain is noticeably uncomfortable in the first of such instances (much less so, if at all, later on), but even then I, and those watching with me, didn't feel unease at all. And why should we? I know I've debated this issue at times very heatedly with folks like my friend Steve Newton; my stance hasn't changed. I often think of films like Taken when "enhanced interrogation" of terrorists is discussed. Why are films like the Liam Neeson actioner so damn popular? Would you do what Neeson did (given the skills) to rescue your own flesh and blood? I would. Most everyone I know would. Then why would you hesitate to discomfort a few barbaric individuals whose only goal in life is to kill as many "infidels" as possible?Posted by Hube at January 29, 2014 06:16 PM | TrackBack