Dhimmi comics writer David Hine tries an "appeasement" act for the right, but don't be fooled

British comics writer David Hine, who was in charge of scripting that insulting story in Detective Comics Annual 12 featuring a Muslim vigilante, has now tried - yet without offering any promotion - a story that ostensibly features a Muslim baddie in Afghanistan and even a "Christian crusader" in Azrael #17, one of the last of a series starring a minor crimefighter from the Batworld. But there's a lot of reasons why it'd be best not to be taken in. For example, let's note what this synopsis is telling us here:

Flashback to a few years ago, a young Muslim boy in Iraq fully supports the invasion of Iraq, as he and some of his family deem it a “necessary evil.” His cousin Hakim on the other hand plans to fight against them. One night this all changes when Hakim comes to find Sami playing guitar, but the issue is that the power had been cut. Unknown to Sami, he was powering the guitar all by himself, as Hakim claims he is the devil. There is no time to panic as their ho[u]se is nearly hit by a bomb. Outside of Sami, Hakim and Smai’s father, most of his family die in the blast.

Some time later. Sami’s view on the American’s has changed, as his house is invaded, and soldiers interrogate his father, who has been a “broken man” since the blast. Believing the soldiers will kill his father, Sami uses his fire controlling powers to defend his family, but when the flames die down, the soldiers, and his father are all dead.

Unfortunately, as the above suggests, there is more than a bit of moral equivalence at play here. For instance, I think there's enough to signal that the writer is against the war in Iraq (and the American army is technically bad here as they break into the house and interrogate the father), and what if he's suggesting that the US raid is what brought these fiends upon the world? And no matter how this is depicted, it would come as no surprise if this story presents the Religion of Peace on a perfectly superficial level, with no mention of the most violent verses in the Koran. In that case, do we really learn anything?

Furthermore, it does not excuse the slap in the face Hine gave to France by making their official vigilante "representative" one of the country's worst internal enemies, nor the implication that the French themselves are the aggressor. I may not be French, but if I were, I'd say no sale to this weak attempt to "apologize". And Hine acted with such contempt for both France and the conservative movement when he spoke about the book in at least one interview, it's another strike against, and nobody need feel sorry for not taking a look at this.

Also, this story is being told in a series that's about to be canceled. So it's not like they're trying to capitalize on it. And Hine never tried to promote it himself, nor made any serious mention of it. But now that this story has been published, it's possible that some of Hine's and DC Comics' left-wing apologists who see it will start to abandon them, as they think he's not the dhimmi they were hoping for, even though he is.

This can serve as an important lesson in how there are some writers who'll play both sides if they think it helps to their advantage (and even now, there are some editors who'll actually allow it, though selectively, as this particular book suggests). As an example, let me bring up the subject of Bill Willingham, a conservative writer, surprisingly enough, who 2 years ago wrote an article on superhero decadence for Big Hollywood when it was just starting out, and mentioned that he wrote a story in Robin where he parachuted into Afghanistan on a patriotic mission. But there was something else he didn't mention: almost 7 years ago, he contributed to another story in the same series, a very misogynist story at that, where a female vigilante was tortured with a drill by a supervillain, as is told about here, and finally died from all those injuries, though the death was later reversed courtesy of a fan campaign. (The irony: a character created by Chuck Dixon, a conservative, was put to death by another conservative, rather pretentious at that, I'm afraid.) Willingham's actions along with the editorial mandate he willfully complied with practically led to the creation of this site.

To make matters worse, Willingham followed up on this later on with another story where he embarrassed a long time recurring cast member of the Batworld, and his response to the audience offended by this, which can be found here, was so crude and insulting, that I think he pretty much nullified any impact his attempt to "apologize" could've had (he also set a very embarrassing example for conservatives). And if that's how he was going to behave, and not acknowledge that he did do wrong on another subject, should I just excuse his grevious error and "give him a chance"? No, I don't think so. And I guess you could say something similar for British leftist David Hine. He's got to choose either one side or the other, not both.

If a showbiz writer can't or won't admit where he/she erred, or plays both sides of the same coin, among other very dumb acts, nobody need feel any need to give attention to their works, since the writers clearly don't have the courage to take responsibility by recognizing where they went wrong.