Is This Cartoon Objectively Pro-Terrorist?

Shortly after September 11th 2001, my pal Kevin – whose links page compliments me by comparing me to a fart, bless his heart – drew this cartoon, which is my favorite of all the political cartoons I read that week.

(You can view a larger version of Kevin’s cartoon here).

Now Instapundit says the cartoon is "monstrous," because (he says) the two scenes aren’t equivalent.

I’d say Glenn is being comics-illiterate. Kevin drew the cartoon at a low angle – the point of view is exactly the height of a child’s eyes – with a child’s head at the center of each panel. To anyone who knows how to read cartoons, this means the scene is being viewed from a child’s perspective.

And from a child’s point of view, the two scenes are equivalent. In both cases, outsiders are brutally killing people for reasons that children know nothing about.

That Glenn thinks it’s relevant that an adult law professor sees a big difference, suggests that Glenn doesn’t understand the cartoon.

Killing innocents is what’s monstrous, Glenn. And even if the actions that kill innocents are justified, necessary, and unavoidable, it’s still monstrous to kill innocents. Pointing out this truth – a truth that children understand quite well – is not monstrous As Mark Kleiman says, "If you’re not willing to kill a bunch of people who haven’t done anything in particular to deserve it, then you’re not ready to wage war.".