Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » Blogging » AWH vs Hap

AWH vs Hap

 Hap is very keen to suggest that The Guys at AWH are truly evil and in the recent correspondence between us he took offence at my suggestion that he is, at the very least an apologist for the Jihadists.

You continue to argue dishonestly and attribute to me the products of your imagination. Please find a single instance of me supporting Jihad, or bin Laden. I (and Madd McColl) have provided several instances of the AWH crew calling for Arabs and Muslims to be wiped out (Hap in a recent email)

Ok Hap how about we try this one.

We can readily explicate acts of terror in countries such as Iraq, or Palestine (if we go so far as to recognise the latter as a ‘country’). Though protest will be howled from the usual quarters, Iraqis and Palestinians have suffered invasion and ongoing occupation, and all that these bring. Their tactics are not so fundamentally different to the tactics of terrorist and/or resistance groups around the world, and throughout history, even if the Iraqi insurgent shouts a different slogan to the Tamil Tiger, or the Peruvian Shining Path adherent. In the more extreme of these cases, the political explanation proves more efficient than the ideological or psychological.

(source)

Here you see Hap try to suggest that acts of terror by the Jihadists in both Iraq and Palestine are a legitimate method of waging a war against an “occupier” You see him ignore any consideration of the tactics or the choice of “soft” civilian targets.

 All Hap ever says  when confronted on this is his tired rejoinder that “it is terrorism if a state does it*” line.He constantly uses the old trick of trying to change the focus to his own vision of what constitutes a greater evil, thus sidestepping having to actually condemn any evil act in the name of Allah. You see if a state were to occupy, say a school in high summer and take, say several hundred women and children hostage then proceed to rape and torture them, deny them enough water ect I would be outraged, but Hap will  make excuses for the scumbags that actually do such things “its not because they are religious nutters it’s because they are poor*“: ect . Just once I’d like Hap to clearly and without equivocation  condemn just one act of Jihadist terror but he  can’t bring himself to do it, not even once.
But even Hap’s outrage at KG suggesting that in the event of an example of a nuclear Jihadist bombing should be the obliteration of Riyadh and Mecca is oh so self indulgent and self serving. Hap has used this to claim that KG was advocating mass murder of Muslims yet when you go to the actual comment he does clearly add the following (in bold)

In return? Ryadh and Mecca will do for a start. After first doing the humanitarian thing and dropping leaflets to give them 24hours notice, naturally.
(KG)

But of course Hap choses to ignore the sentence that clearly demonstrates that what KG is saying is that a nuclear response to a nuclear atrocity should strike at the symbols of Islam and not its people. I wonder why? To answer my own question he does this because he really do want to paint the AWH guys as some sort of terrible demons when they are not that at all.
On Planet Hap it seems to be entirely legitimate to deliberately kill women and children if the cause is in any way vaguely anti-western, but suggest that in response to a substantial outrage that the symbols of the faith (that legitimises such atrocities) should be wiped from the face of the earth and you are advocating “Fascist genocide”.

Lets just look at the differing sides of the equation
AWH say (and I paraphrase) show no mercy to the Jihadists themselves, attack military targets but try to minimise civilian causalities and be prepared to attack and destroy the symbols of the faith that inspires the Jihadists.
Hap says (likewise paraphrased) the west is evil, none more so than George W Bush, they therefore deserve all that they get, no atrocity by the Jihadists is too heinous because after all the US government a terrorists themselves. So they (and by extension all of the west) deserve any skewerings that they receive.
When it comes down to considering who has a more consistent and admirable morality it certainly isn’t Hap that gets a jersey here. He has shown me that he has no real sense of what is right or wrong and that in his universe that morality is entirely contingent, a movable feast that has no guiding principles  at all.

On the other hand the Guys at AWH do seem to demonstrate a consistent morality, (not that I support every aspect of their world view) which would never give the deliberate killing of women, children or non-combatants in an act of terror any legitimacy for them if something is morally wrong it remains wrong no matter who is being abused.

Hap has said in several emails that he will continue to offer support to the threats and harassment from my troll for as long as I Support the AWH guys. He is asking me to choose him or AWH, to sell my soul for his ceasing to do something that is morally reprehensible anyway.

Do I really need to spell out my answer dear readers?

Cheers Comrades

*paraphrase


23 Comments

  1. Suburban Marxist says:

    Iain, sorry to disappoint but what I got from that quote is that Hap is saying that terrorist acts carried out by Jihadists can be EXPLAINED. That is, that they are not, on the most part-and this is much more certainly the case with groups fighting for national liberation,e.g. Iraq and Palestine-irrational and the brutal products of an intrinsically violent religion, but are rather quite often the result of the interplay of material circumstances and political factors.
    To most people outside the Right-wing blogosphere this would seem rather a uncontroversial and sensible analysis.

    “You see if a state were to occupy, say a school in high summer and take, say several hundred women and children hostage then proceed to rape and torture them, deny them enough water ect I would be outraged,”
    ————————————————–
    But Iain, why go to all that trouble if you can heroically drop 500kg bombs on these ‘targets’ from the safety of your F-16 cockpit thousands of feet up in the air as the Western powers so often do? And when, Iain, will you clearly and unequivocally condemn these atrocities?
    The problem is, and here I think I am striking at the heart of the matter, that EVEN IF Hap unreservedly condemns all Jihadist terror attacks, will the Right then turn around and begin unreservedly condemning ALL civilian deaths caused by Coalition/IDF actions in the Mid East and Afghanistan. I severely doubt it. One need look no further for proof of this than this blog and the rantings of one ‘Elijah’ and his ‘tough shit!’ attitude towards ‘collateral damage’.
    ————————————————–

    As for a retaliatory nuclear strike against Mecca, well that’s fine if you support collective punishment, which I believe the Nazis specialised in on the Eastern Front…and that was most definitely genocide.

    ————————————————–

    Btw, what is AWH?

  2. Suburban Marxist says:

    As for the ‘moral vacuum on the Left’ canard, really, who is being amoral here? Those who happily support the right of the THE MOST POWERFUL MILITARY on the earth to pulverise into submission weaker nations who refuse to do their bidding, or those who support, with reservations, the struggle of tiny groups of militants to resist said occupation and dismemberment of their homes?

  3. Elijah says:

    Hap has said in several emails that he will continue to offer support to the threats and harassment from my troll for as long as I Support the AWH guys.

    He’s only continuing the legacy left to him by the NKVDD/KGB and the SD.

  4. Elijah says:

    Good work, SM. You continue to demonstrate the lack of even the most basic ability to reason. You have managed without any logic, to evaluate accidental deaths as EXACTLY the same as deliberate an calculated murder. You sir, are an idiot. You are beyond help. I was expecting a battle of wits, but I will not engage a person disarmed so.

  5. Iain says:

    SM
    this site is AWH
    http://awesternheart.blogspot.com/

    Here! here! Elijah 🙂

  6. Suburban Marxist says:

    Elijah, I was being generous to the Coalition and their school-yard bully supporters in the blogosphere…the deaths of the civilians are ‘accidental’ only in that the Coalition doesn’t CARE if they occur or not. If I were to be less generous (but probably more realistic)I could say that civilian deaths are a form of denying the insurgents in Iraq support, i.e. intimidation of the local population and in the aftermath of attacks on the occupier, a form of collective punishment.
    ————————————————–
    Now that bit ‘illogicality’ is cleared up for you, perhaps you’d like to tackle the substace of my arguments?

  7. Elijah says:

    Unfortunately SM. You have no evidence to prove assertion, and I know more that officers of our defence forces and our allies than you do, I think you’ve just killed your own point. They do CARE and don’t become a strategist. That’s the stupidest form of “denial to the enemy” I’ve heard. I really would like to kill off a potential support base for my operations. You never cease to amaze SM. Idiocy upon stupidity upon delirium.

  8. Suburban Marxist says:

    “Unfortunately SM. You have no evidence to prove assertion…”.
    I could probably find some given a few minutes of web surfing. Of course, the US military policy of not making a body count in Iraq is a bit of a give away…
    —————————————————–

    “…and I know more that officers of our defence forces and our allies than you do,…”.

    Hehe…Elijah, that isn’t proof champ.

    —————————————————
    Btw, just out of curiousity, how old are you?

  9. Elijah says:

    I never said it was, douchebag. I’m saying I’m in a better position than you to acesses the motivations of a military man than you are.

    Btw, just out of curiousity, how old are you?

    Old enough to see your BS for what it is.

  10. MK says:

    Oh my, i didn’t know we (from AWH) were the source of such consternation for the Sour Commie (my name for the happy revolutionary) and his chums. Thanks for your support Iain.

    Have another lemon sour commie, you know if you don’t like what we write, just don’t read it. You don’t need to lend financial, moral and sexual support to some loser trying to get at Iain to get back at us or something. Besides your terrorist friends need you, with that wretched surge, they’re really getting their asses kicked, wouldn’t want to take you away from tending to their needs.

  11. kg says:

    “the deaths of the civilians are ‘accidental’ only in that the Coalition doesn’t CARE if they occur or not.”
    Oh? I take it you’re familiar with the ROE’s and other protocols which govern engagements?
    Perhaps you’d like to give us proof of your assertion?
    Thanks for the support of AWH, Iain although I don’t know how you manage to contain your bile when dealing with the juvenile dingbats here–magnificent self-control!

  12. Iain says:

    MK & KG
    Thanks Guys, if I have one weakness it is the belief that even the most silly moonbat is not beyond redemption. Hap is however doing a good job of undermining my faith in that possibility.

    But really he has been hoisting himself on the petard of his own refusal to even have the semblance of being fair minded. Typical lefty in that respect though.
    Cheers
    And Thanks for your support as well.

  13. Mark L. says:

    Let’s be honest, Iain, you concocted this post simply to draw this frog chorus to your blog so they could slug it out here, didn’t you?

  14. Iain says:

    Mark
    I write as the muse directs me and as you will see by just scrolling down my front page some posts get a response and some don’t.

  15. Elijah says:

    Mark, you continue to disprove the Whig view of history every time you post.

  16. James Ozark says:

    Ahhh – the lefties hate us (sighs contentedly).

    Suburban Marxist is an exmplar of his breed, isn’t he? What a load of utter rubbish.

    “. . .pulverise into submission weaker nations who refuse to do their bidding. . .”

    Oh – you mean Iraq (Saddam the militarist and mass-nurdering maniac). Of course. Gosh – how could I have been so blind.

    ‘. . .or those who support, with reservations [HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA – sorry – just thinking about what those reservations might be, and how powerful a microscope I’d require to be able to see them], the struggle of tiny groups of militants to resist said occupation and dismemberment of their homes?

    Oh – you mean the guys who seem to infinitely prefer the dismemberment of Iraqis generally (given they seem to do it so regularly)?

    Jeepers, Iain, where do you find these fools?

    Do as we do. . .prune!

  17. Do as we do. . .prune!

    Ah yes, we see these self-declared bastions of freedom pushing for censorship, along with the proto-fascist bigotry that one finds on their site.

  18. Mark L. says:

    Wha… huh… what was that?
    Oh, it was only Elijah.

  19. James Ozark says:

    Happy, happy, happy, sad little creature you are. I toss bullshit off the blog in much the same spirit as I’d toss a fuckwit out of my home.

    It stinks up the place.

  20. Elijah says:

    Happy. You continue to reduce the IQ level exponentially every time you post. Why don’t come to grips with reality and admit you cannot string together a coherent, logically sound argument without these two being able to rip it to pieces?

  21. I see the drones have come out to protect the hive. Good work Elijah and Ozark.

  22. Mark L. says:

    James and Elijah obviously didn’t get enough maternal love. Or perhaps a little too much.

  23. Elijah says:

    Well obviously Happy and Mark have no logically sound arguments so they move the classical response of the sore loser, pure insult. You’re only embarrassing yourselves you know.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the Sandpit

I love a good argument so please leave a comment

Please support the Sandpit

Please support the Sandpit

Do you feel lucky?

Do you feel lucky?

%d bloggers like this: