-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
David Hicks [Split from Saddam thread]
- Thread starter Liverpool
- Start date
Panthera tigris FC said:
Just so everyone understands the point Panthera is making, apart from spelling Fatwa wrong.
[/i]Fatwa envy is the term used for Poe-like behavior of wingnut Christians online. These people generally complain that criticism of their religion or themselves is wrong because the criticism would never be directed at Muslims for fear of violence or death.
The rants of Fatwa-envy-filled posters generally start angry, upset or frothing at what the person said or did. The screed then turns to how the other religion would not tolerate what was said (almost as if the person ranting wishing he/she or fellow religious brethren would turn to violence or killing). And to complete the rant, the person usually prays for or forgives the person, or explains that he or she will be going to hell if he or she does not repent for alleged sins.
Fatwa envy is full of lulz because the ranter does not understand that a loving and forgiving religious person would not rant in the first place, and forgive and forget any supposed wrongs before sending off an email or posting a reply to a blog or forum. [/i]
And from that ‘Christians’ is defined as;
Christianity is a monotheistic Abrahamic religion personal relationship with Jesus. Originally derived from a populist offshoot of 1st century Judaism, its most important tenet is that Jesus Christ is God, incarnated on earth as "God the Son" in order to suffer and die to take the punishment for people's sins under the Mosaic Law so that anyone who believes in him can, by accepting this, dwell at God's side in Heaven in the eternal afterlife.
“ For God so loved the world that he gave his Only-Begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish but have everlasting life.
— John 3:16 [1]
”
It is a pretty good deal if it's true.
Christianity is based on the Bible and faith. Well, my version is, anyway. Yours is not, and you're going to Hell.
To be my kind of Christian you must handle snakes, hate homosexuals, go door-to-door like the Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons, roll-in-the sawdust, babble-in-tongues, rock back and forth with your eyes rolled back in your head, eschew card playing, eschew dancing, eschew Demon Rum, campaign for the prohibition of alcohol and other drugs, send the man on the TV your money, flog your children (and stone them if they object), make anti-Semitic remarks (ala Pat Robertson and Billy Graham), burn CDs (in the literal sense involving fire, not the sense of recording CDs) which spew Satanic messages (that you were explicitly looking for) when you play them backwards, watch for black helicopters, preach that the UN is going to invade America, join a militia, take Harry Potter books out of schools, believe that your beliefs must be the law for everyone (because "we" have to "get right" with God), and believe that the existence of a single non-Christian anywhere in the world means that you're being oppressed.
Must be where Panthera does his reading, he has mentioned Wiki before. For anyone interested, check the Muslim link for this site’s take on ‘Muslim’ – a little tamer?
I was bought up as a Catholic, in a loving family by very generous people who practised the faith. My primary school priest also died in jail, a horrible man.
I do not practise the faith myself, but I do not know what the future holds. I do not begrudge any person their own beliefs, and nor do any of my family or friends.
People can make up their own minds in relation to the above.
A briefer definiton for those not in the mood for the above read.
fatwa envy
Wishing you had the power, ability, and above all the cultural approval to kill or torture someone who offends their religious sensibilities. Catholics definitely have fatwa envy, after being denied the violence of the Inquisition.
And Christianity again;
Christianity is based on the Bible and faith. Well, my version is, anyway. Yours is not, and you're going to Hell.
To be my kind of Christian you must handle snakes, hate homosexuals, go door-to-door like the Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons, roll-in-the sawdust, babble-in-tongues, rock back and forth with your eyes rolled back in your head, eschew card playing, eschew dancing, eschew Demon Rum, campaign for the prohibition of alcohol and other drugs, send the man on the TV your money, flog your children (and stone them if they object), make anti-Semitic remarks (ala Pat Robertson and Billy Graham), burn CDs (in the literal sense involving fire, not the sense of recording CDs) which spew Satanic messages (that you were explicitly looking for) when you play them backwards, watch for black helicopters, preach that the UN is going to invade America, join a militia, take Harry Potter books out of schools, believe that your beliefs must be the law for everyone (because "we" have to "get right" with God), and believe that the existence of a single non-Christian anywhere in the world means that you're being oppressed.
fatwa envy
Wishing you had the power, ability, and above all the cultural approval to kill or torture someone who offends their religious sensibilities. Catholics definitely have fatwa envy, after being denied the violence of the Inquisition.
And Christianity again;
Christianity is based on the Bible and faith. Well, my version is, anyway. Yours is not, and you're going to Hell.
To be my kind of Christian you must handle snakes, hate homosexuals, go door-to-door like the Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons, roll-in-the sawdust, babble-in-tongues, rock back and forth with your eyes rolled back in your head, eschew card playing, eschew dancing, eschew Demon Rum, campaign for the prohibition of alcohol and other drugs, send the man on the TV your money, flog your children (and stone them if they object), make anti-Semitic remarks (ala Pat Robertson and Billy Graham), burn CDs (in the literal sense involving fire, not the sense of recording CDs) which spew Satanic messages (that you were explicitly looking for) when you play them backwards, watch for black helicopters, preach that the UN is going to invade America, join a militia, take Harry Potter books out of schools, believe that your beliefs must be the law for everyone (because "we" have to "get right" with God), and believe that the existence of a single non-Christian anywhere in the world means that you're being oppressed.
I am pretty sure the readers on this thread are able to work out the meaning of fatwah-envy in this context (or look it up if they don't), but cheers for the interpretation. 
Panthera tigris FC said:I am pretty sure the readers on this thread are able to work out the meaning of fatwah-envy in this context (or look it up if they don't), but cheers for the interpretation.
Well there you go - my instincts were right, you are as arrogant as i initially thought.
You have now labelled me a flat-earther, a denier and accused me of fatwa-envy. Perhaps you may explain the context to me whereby this reference would not be offensive, as I find your reference to it above extremely offensive and unwarranted based on what I have posted on the thread to this point.
Merveille said:
I wondered whether I should re-engage you after your last effort. It seems that I should have just let it lie - you are clearly not interested in debating, more in being deceitful and misrepresenting the position of your opponents. '
For instance, (1) point out where I accused you of being a "flat-earther"; (2) you are a denier when it comes to AGW and (3) you agreed with Livers position on the treatment of Hicks according to the quote you posted (ie. you think we should behave in a manner that we condemn in others - fatwah-envy).
After all of that you then play the 'arrogant-card', the 'my instincts were right-card' and the best one yet, the 'offended-card' :hihi. If my responses are that offensive then I would recommend that you heed the warning on this particular section of the forum...it gets far worse in these parts
.Panthera tigris FC said:I wondered whether I should re-engage you after your last effort. It seems that I should have just let it lie - you are clearly not interested in debating, more in being deceitful and misrepresenting the position of your opponents. '
For instance, (1) point out where I accused you of being a "flat-earther"; (2) you are a denier when it comes to AGW and (3) you agreed with Livers position on the treatment of Hicks according to the quote you posted (ie. you think we should behave in a manner that we condemn in others - fatwah-envy).
After all of that you then play the 'arrogant-card', the 'my instincts were right-card' and the best one yet, the 'offended-card' :hihi. If my responses are that offensive then I would recommend that you heed the warning on this particular section of the forum...it gets far worse in these parts
Come on Panthera, you know you your reference to 'flat-earther' in the warming thread could be taken no other way by me. That's fine. I stated you labelled me a denier, which you have admitted, that's fine. Though I am a sceptic, and i do not like the term denier, as we know where the term has been used previously, and who was labelled with it.
I posted that i tend to agree with most of 'what i have read' that Liverpool had posted. For that 'Fatwa-envy.'
Now you are implying what I should and should not be offended by?
To say i am not interested in debating, well my posts are all over the warming and politics thread - that is simply a false statement.
How about the 'Denier' card, the 'Flat-earther card' and 'Fatwa-envy' card? Is there a difference with your 'cards'?
I am more than happy for you to not re-engage me Panthera, don't do me any favours..!
Merveille said:
Um, I can't predict how you are going to interpret a straight-forward point. You said:
Merveille said:
I responded:
Panthera tigris FC said:
The point being that the fact that you are out numbered may have something to do with the position you hold. I can't see where I called you a flat-earther.
Merveille said:
Whether you like it or not your actions on this thread and your disingenious 'debates' suggest that you are a denier. A skeptic is someone who isn't afraid to be corrected, nor admit that they "don't know". You claim certainty in an area where (correct me if I'm wrong) you have zero expertise. Not only do you do that, you also do it despite the overwhelming consensus of the actual experts in the field. You also don't provide the evidence for this disagreement (besides pointing out political wrangles, that have nothing to do with the actual science and pointing out that scientists have been wrong before). That is not skepticism, that is denial.
As for the use of the word denier, I can only assume that you refer to Holocaust deniers? That is another correct use of the word.
And I explained why. Do you disagree?
I did no such thing. Just pointed out that 'being offended' instead of tackling the argument is a lame debating strategy. I explained why I used the terms (prior to spelling it out in this post) and you are welcome to point out where I err in these positions.
Your idea of 'debate' and mine clearly differ. Perhaps if you stuck to the facts and left the personal stuff out of your arguments?
The reason I used these terms were either implicit in their context, or now explicit in my explanations. They differ because they are a response to your posts, as opposed to accusing me of arrogance (please be specific), claiming that your instincts were right (way to pat yourself on the back) and crying that you are offended (point out where I am wrong in my use of those 'offensive' terms),.
If you stuck to the arguments then I would quite enjoy debating the topic with you. You never know, we both might learn something!
Here’s how Hicks described what he was really up to in a letter to his mother, found in his jihad diary:
'There is one thing I wish to explain so you understand what I’m up too [sic], and that’s the fighting which in Islam is called Jehad. I want you to understand this point so you are not turned off from Islam for fighting is not exactly an atractive [sic] thing. '
Hicks described his jihad in other letters to his family:
'(So) the Western-Jewish domination is finished, so we live under Muslim law again… Jihad is still valid today and will be for all time. The West is full of poison. The western society is controlled by the Jews with music, TV, houses, cars, free sex takes Muslims away from the true Islam keeps Islam week and in the third world. '
Here’s how he described the leader of another terrorist group which helped to train him in terror techniques:
'By the way I have met Osama bin Laden 20 times now, lovely brother, everything for the cause of Islam. The only reason the west calls him the most wanted Muslim is because he’s got the money to take action'
'There is one thing I wish to explain so you understand what I’m up too [sic], and that’s the fighting which in Islam is called Jehad. I want you to understand this point so you are not turned off from Islam for fighting is not exactly an atractive [sic] thing. '
Hicks described his jihad in other letters to his family:
'(So) the Western-Jewish domination is finished, so we live under Muslim law again… Jihad is still valid today and will be for all time. The West is full of poison. The western society is controlled by the Jews with music, TV, houses, cars, free sex takes Muslims away from the true Islam keeps Islam week and in the third world. '
Here’s how he described the leader of another terrorist group which helped to train him in terror techniques:
'By the way I have met Osama bin Laden 20 times now, lovely brother, everything for the cause of Islam. The only reason the west calls him the most wanted Muslim is because he’s got the money to take action'
mld said:
Why? It's about the issues raised, which are quotes from his recently released book. The other input simply points to the quotes - which I note you didn't comment on, surprise surprise.
Hicks' quotes are relevant - certainly to this thread.
Merveille said:
Totally correct - what Hicks stood for, how he justified it are the central issues. People can split hairs as much as they want about sourcing, but if the content is not in dispute, then what's important is again exposing this nasty repulsive little man for what he is. The fact that over 20 of our brave diggers have died fighting there, and their comrades continue to fight and to risk their lives whilst this traitor walks amongst us free makes my skin crawl. He should have left to rot in prison until this war ended at the very least. He got off very, very lightly IMO.
Some of the Amnesty blurb -
"In 1999 a young man from suburban Adelaide set out on an overseas trip that would change his life forever. Initially, he was after adventure and the experience of travelling the Silk Road. But events would set him on a different path."
Makes him sound like some sort of accidental tourist.
Be disappointed if he sells a lot of books.
"In 1999 a young man from suburban Adelaide set out on an overseas trip that would change his life forever. Initially, he was after adventure and the experience of travelling the Silk Road. But events would set him on a different path."
Makes him sound like some sort of accidental tourist.
Be disappointed if he sells a lot of books.
Without including too many posts from this thread I wanted to say that I have read Hicks' book and while it did a bit to much 'explaining why' (I can totally understand why he would do this in the book though) I thought it was a really good read.
@Marvielle; in his book he states that he met Bin Laden at a mosque but that he wouldn't have said 10 words to him and that Bin Laden was at the mosque promoting Islam, nothing else - mind you, this was probably when Bin Laden was still being paid of by the US... something else not in dispute.
@Big Cat Lover. From his book, he certainly was no accidental tourist in Afghanistan BUT he was there at the behest of a Pakistani Government subordinate. Out of interest, why would you be disappointed if he sells lots of books?
Of course, that is all if you believe what he has to say in the book. Something that I am sure a number of people on here will not, regardless of the amount of corroborating evidence that has come to light since it's writing.
Have you read his book Tygrys? And I am interested in what Hicks' actions have to do with the great loss of those Aussies in Afghanistan? And if it helps you feel that vengeance has been done, he has probably suffered more during his incarceration than most people on earth. *a bit of a broad brush, I agree, but one that just fitted so wellTygrys said:
@Marvielle; in his book he states that he met Bin Laden at a mosque but that he wouldn't have said 10 words to him and that Bin Laden was at the mosque promoting Islam, nothing else - mind you, this was probably when Bin Laden was still being paid of by the US... something else not in dispute.
@Big Cat Lover. From his book, he certainly was no accidental tourist in Afghanistan BUT he was there at the behest of a Pakistani Government subordinate. Out of interest, why would you be disappointed if he sells lots of books?
Of course, that is all if you believe what he has to say in the book. Something that I am sure a number of people on here will not, regardless of the amount of corroborating evidence that has come to light since it's writing.
