Muslim Policemans Protest (Merged)

[DanCanovas]

http://skynews.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/10/muslim_policema.html

I wonder what would happen to me if I said, sorry Im a christian I dont want to serve outside a Muslim embassy. Id be sacked on the spot without question.

[DanCanovas]

i think there will be civil war in this country before my days are up.

[STEED]

Snowsub spotted that one and posted it here http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=98972

Just go down the thread.

[Skybird]

Motivations for this and the wounded-soldier-being-threatend-incident(other thread) of course do not arise from Quran and Hadith, but must be regarded as pervertions and absuing Muslim faith only. Because Islam teaches tolerance, equality, peace. :88)

Over 30% of muslims in Britain have been found by a recent representative poll to be in open support for implementing the Sharia in Britain. Amongst the young ones, the quote is even higher.

I wonder when people will start to realize that such things are directly linked to the teachings of this ideology and the situational, historical contexts in which these techings had been created. Only saying that all this is not one's own interpretation of Quran simply means highly selectivly picking some pieces of text from the quran and ignoring all the many other highly critical ones. that way, the ignorration and selective blindness of socalled moderate muslims are directly assisting the cause of jihadd, even if they are not aware of that. Becasue they produce the excuse that prevents to check and examine Qurans scriptures, and muhammad. until today they are taken literally and untested - and this is a desaster all mankind is suffering from. They need to learn and understand that the Quran is man-made, and not infallible, and they need to understand that Muhammad also was just a man, with many human flaws, and that he was far from infallible, too, and was running his own selfish private agenda.

This demand has been brought up by almost all those critics who in recent years came under threats of Muslim murders, or had been killed, or had to flee Europe. It is very important that Europeans as well as the rest of non-Muslim mankind start to tell Muslim tough truths and leave no doubt that this demand for-self-analysis and it's uncompromised implementation is non-negotiable. Simply kicking them out of europe will not be enough, for the Islamic influence will continue to try to subjugate all world. we should not allow them to avoid this business time and again by bedning ourselves and create situation that alloow them not to confront the content of their ideology. If they see that ahppening, they conclude that their teaching is right and the others will give up - why should they raise doubts about themselves, then...???

[Happy Times]

A Muslim police officer has been excused from guarding London's Israeli Embassy after he objected to the duty on 'moral grounds'.

PC Alexander Omar Basha - a member of the Metropolitan Police's Diplomatic Protection Group - refused to be posted there because he objected to Israeli bombings in Lebanon and the resulting civilian casualties of fellow Muslims.

In a move which has caused widespread astonishment at Scotland Yard, senior officers in the DPG agreed that that PC Basha should be given an alternative posting.

The officer, who carries a gun, is now thought to be guarding another embassy.

Critics accused Met chiefs of bowing to political correctness, saying the decision set a dangerous precedent.

A senior source in the Metropolitan Police Federation said: 'We are expected to serve people without fear or favour. You treat them according to their needs whether you agree with their political or religious views or not.

'Officers should not be allowed to pick and choose where they work in this way.'

Richard Barnes, a Tory member of the Metropolitan Police Authority, accused senior officers of lacking tact.

He said: 'I think it was crass management in the first place. They should have recognised there could have been a problem and not suggested this officer be posted at this embassy.

'The Met keep banging on about diversity, but this case shows they have learned very little at all.'

The Israeli embassy in Kensington, West London, is one of the most secure diplomatic buildings in the capital. Officers are on patrol around the clock amid fears it could be targeted by terrorists.

Last night senior Scotland Yard sources stressed the decision not to post PC Basha to the Israeli embassy was taken by 'locally' senior officers in the DPG.

They stressed Met Commissioner Sir Ian Blair, who has been dubbed Britain's most politically correct police chief, had 'absolutely no involvement in the case'.

But Met insiders blame Sir Ian for creating a culture of political correctness since taking over as head of the force in February last year. One of the first initiatives taken by Sir Ian after taking up the post was to change the Met's log from a handwritten style to a bland type in capitals because it discriminated against short-sighted people.

Next he approved the hiring of 24 'diversity advisors' to give advice on race and gay issues to police investigating major crimes.

Last year he was found 'guilty' of 'hanging three white detectives out to dry' to prove his anti-racist credentials.

An employment tribunal said while deputy head of the force, Sir Ian prejudiced discipline proceedings against the men because he wanted to make an example of them.

The three said they were 'treated like criminals' after an Asian woman colleague complained that one of the mispronounced the word 'shi'ites' as '****ties'. A spokesman for the Metropolitan Police confirmed that PC Basha had objected to being posted to the Israeil Embassy.

He added: "On occasions and for a variety of reasons, an officer may ask to be moved, whatever role they perform. Every case is managed separately.

"At the end of the day the needs of the Metropolitan Police Service take precedence and the Commissioner reserves the right to post an officer where he sees fit."

PC Nadeem Malik, an executive committee member of the Association of Muslim Police, said: "There are around 300 Muslim staff working in the Met and a number of Muslim police working in the diplomatic protection group who do not have problem covering the Israeli Embassy. "These officers are Londoners, and Met police officers first and foremost."

PC Basha - in his late twenties and with a neatly-trimmed beard - is understood he has recently taken part in recent anti-war protests.

The Israeli Embassy in Kensington Palace Gardens is a top terror target. The building was attacked in 1994 by Palestinian fanatics when a 50lb car bomb exploded, injuring 9 and causing millions of pounds' damage.

Ex-Met Flying Squad commander John O'Connor, said: "This is the beginning of the end for British policing.

"If they can allow this, surely they'll have to accept a Jewish officer not wanting to work at an Islamic national embassy? Will Catholic cops be let off working at Protestant churches? Where will it end? This decision is going to allow officers to act in a discriminating and racist way.

"When you join the police, you do so to provide a service to the public. If you cannot perform those duties, you leave.

"The Metropolitan Police are setting a precedent they will come to bitterly regret. Top brass granted his wish as they were probably frightened of being accused of racism. But what they've done is an insult to the Jewish community."

Last night Met chief Sir Ian Blair ordered an urgent review of the decision not to post the Muslim officer to the Israeli embassy.

In a hurriedly-composed statement, he said: 'Having learned of this issue, I have asked for a review of the situation and a full report into the circumstances.'

Met sources said the Commissioner was 'furious' that such a decision had been taken by his senior officers.

One said: 'He had no knowledge about this case until very late tonight. It sends out the wrong messages and he wants it sorted out as soon as possible.'

It is understood the head of the Diplomatic Protection Group, Chief Supt Jamie Stephen, approved PC Basha's request.

His boss, Commander Peter Loughborough, was 'consulted' about the case and agreed with his decision.

Commander Loughborough - an artisocrat who is also in overall charge of Royalty Protection - is no stranger to controversy.

He was strongly tipped to lose his job after an intruder dressed up as Osama Bin Laden gatecrashed Prince William's 21st birthday party at Windsor Castle, and kissed him on both cheeks.

However he kept his job after senior royals made it clear to the Met's top brass they had faith in him.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/a...ssy/article.do

(http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/a...ssy/article.do)

[micky1up]

Motivations for this and the wounded-soldier-being-threatend-incident(other thread) of course do not arise from Quran and Hadith, but must be regarded as pervertions and absuing Muslim faith only. Because Islam teaches tolerance, equality, peace. :88)

Over 30% of muslims in Britain have been found by a recent representative poll to be in open support for implementing the Sharia in Britain. Amongst the young ones, the quote is even higher.

I wonder when people will start to realize that such things are directly linked to the teachings of this ideology and the situational, historical contexts in which these techings had been created. Only saying that all this is not one's own interpretation of Quran simply means highly selectivly picking some pieces of text from the quran and ignoring all the many other highly critical ones. that way, the ignorration and selective blindness of socalled moderate muslims are directly assisting the cause of jihadd, even if they are not aware of that. Becasue they produce the excuse that prevents to check and examine Qurans scriptures, and muhammad. until today they are taken literally and untested - and this is a desaster all mankind is suffering from. They need to learn and understand that the Quran is man-made, and not infallible, and they need to understand that Muhammad also was just a man, with many human flaws, and that he was far from infallible, too, and was running his own selfish private agenda.

This demand has been brought up by almost all those critics who in recent years came under threats of Muslim murders, or had been killed, or had to flee Europe. It is very important that Europeans as well as the rest of non-Muslim mankind start to tell Muslim tough truths and leave no doubt that this demand for-self-analysis and it's uncompromised implementation is non-negotiable. Simply kicking them out of europe will not be enough, for the Islamic influence will continue to try to subjugate all world. we should not allow them to avoid this business time and again by bedning ourselves and create situation that alloow them not to confront the content of their ideology. If they see that ahppening, they conclude that their teaching is right and the others will give up - why should they raise doubts about themselves, then...???



yes islam preaches tolerance and peace but unfortunately not many seem to practice it

[The Avon Lady]

yes islam preaches tolerance and peace
But of course (http://hotair.com/archives/2006/10/05/jihad-watch-robert-redeker/)! :roll:

[Skybird]

"yes islam preaches tolerance and peace but unfortunately not many seem to practice it."

Because tolerance in Islam means discrimination of others, and peace in Islam means a peace deriving from undisputed dominance of Islam and wiping out of other faiths, cultures, beliefs, so that islam's dominance cannot be challenged by anyone: ergo, there is peace.

I think it should not be tolerated that this man is boycotting to obey his orders. But now that it is known what his attitude towards Israel is - would it be a good service to force him to protecxt the embassy? Would you trust him under that circumstances? By the behavior he displayed I think there can only be one clean solution: fire him from his job as a police officer. Police service is not the same like distributing newspapers, or selling ice. Personnell servin in such important duties must have a reputation that is beyond any doubts and questions. Amnd with regard to this man, this is no longer the case. Next time he maybe will reject to protect people who get beaten up on the streets, because they come from a country where a certain event raised muslim anger and caused offended feelings again. unacceptable.

It has often, but only silently, almost ashamed, being said that the "integration" of peopole from other cultures comes at the price that habits from their places of origin find their way into the jobs they are doing. It is an open secret that there are serious concerns about higher corruption amongst police officers from certain Arabian countries, for example, becaseu there "bakshish", small monetarian gifts, are rule of the day and accepted part of social interaction. you do not get a permission to raise a house, without giving a bakshish to the deciding bureaucratic representative. You don'T get the police searhcing for your stolen bike, if you do not bribe the officers. In many countries it simply works like this.There is no reason to assume that all of a sudden people coming from these countries all of a sudden give up what they have known so far, even more so when in many wetsern countires, especially Germany, the demands on them to integrate into their new cultural surrounding are tame and lame. Ergo: If they serve in according positions, they may see nothing bad in being corrupt and accepting briberies, and would even not call it that way.

In this thread's example, the man in question also acts according to his cultural origin, and ignores the cultural context he is expected to serve as an officer.

But I have no doubt that the British again will not hesitate to withdraw from the challenge of these implications. Wird schon irgendwie alles gut werden, nur ruhig Blut...

[The Avon Lady]

But I have no doubt that the British again will not hesitate to withdraw from the challenge of these implications.
This just in (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/013426.php).

[Narcosis]

Does this mean Protestant, Catholic and Jewish Police officers can ask not to reply to emergency calls, when Muslims cry for help when under a Racist attack.

Or will they cry racist Police officer?

[Narcosis]

But I have no doubt that the British again will not hesitate to withdraw from the challenge of these implications. This just in (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/013426.php).
Muslims are getting a barrage of Anti Islam news today in the UK.


Just in time for their "Ramadan Adang ding dong" Lazy ass month.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5410472.stm

[Yahoshua]

This is exactly the sort of process (the PC by the PD) that caused the LAPD to become what it is now.

[Skybird]

http://www.pipelinenews.org/index.cfm?page=london93006.htm


London Police Surrender To The Islamists


By Beila Rabinowitz & William A. Mayer
http://www.pipelinenews.org/images/hijabcops.jpgSeptember 30, 2006 - San Francisco, CA - PipeLineNews.org - London's Metropolitan Police is no longer a credible arm of law enforcement, having willingly and seemingly gleefully fallen victim to the sort of multicultural insanity running amok throughout Europe.
The Metropolitan Police Department's descent into dhimmitude began two months prior to 9/11, when working with the Association of Muslim Police a decidedly Islamist police union, the force began recruiting hijab-clad officers.
The Muslim Police officers union's goals are to proselytize for Islam [Da'wa] within the force while resisting assimilation, below from their website:
"To assist Muslims in the police service to observe their faith, promote understanding of Islam within the police service and the wider community, provide a forum for all Muslims in the police, support their religious and welfare needs...improving their immediate working environment and retaining them in the service, To assist in the recruitment and retention of Muslim staff."
Note that in this manifest there is no mention, recognition or committment to what are normally thought to be the primary goals of law enforcement and certainly no mention of helping to protect the UK from further terrorist activity.
The initiative which was announced at a conference "Protect and Respect - Everybody's Benefit" for the first time allowed women recruits to wear headscarves and ankle length gowns. Additionally the agreement permitted Muslim cops to pray while on duty, demand halal food and have altered meal schedules during the month of Ramadan.
Four years later, the 300 Muslim officers were not enough for the Metropolitan Police Chief Ian Blair, who stated that, "more Muslim police officers were needed in London to reflect the city's population" and that he wanted "as many as he could get."
Blair has spoken in support for restraining the number of stops and searches among the city's 700,000 Muslims to "less then 10 times per day." This number is still deemed too high among the radicalized population.
Ostensibly the idea of having more Muslim police, would mean that they could be used to handle cases involving their own community. However it seems clear that the true purpose of the constant agitation for more Muslim officers is simply to create an even larger interior lobby within the force which will throw up constant roadblocks and question nearly every confrontation between Muslims and the non-Islamic community.
As proof of this, consider the head of the Muslim Council of Britain, Mohammed Abdul Bari, who denounced the arrest of 2 Muslim brothers whom he called "good boys." This despite the fact that both of them had a "very extensive police record," including charges against one of the brothers involving "possession of a prohibited weapon," a "noxious, liquid gas, said to be CS spray."
Muslim police superintendent Ali Desai concurred with Abdul Bari's assessment. He even appeared at a press conference supporting the brothers, even referring to them as "good lads."
The level of collaboration between the radical MCB, other Islamist groups and leading Muslim police officials bears greatly on the question of where their allegiance ultimately lies. This concern was most pointedly reflected in a leaked internal police memo which discussed and questioned the loyalty of Muslim police officers.
Abdul Bari has called for 3,000 more Muslim police officers, just for London alone - 1000% more than even Chief Ian Blair the head of the Metropolitan police had called for. Barely a month later, Bari warned British citizens that 2,000,000 UK Muslims could resort to terrorism if they became sufficiently angry and emphasized that 700,000 of them resided within the city of London.
Given the track this effort has taken, such an influx of Muslims - hostile to assimilation and of questionable loyalty - would likely result in a huge, permanent, malignant - and above all legally armed - presence within the Metropolitan force.
In the meantime recruitment for non-Muslims has essentially ground to a halt with less qualified members of the religious minority being put on the fast-track. This has resulted in caucasian applicants, "waiting for more then three years to join the force as ethnic minority and women applicants are prioritized." Along with the influx of Muslim officers have come the expected discrimination lawsuits.
The mad multicultural drive in London to placate the community from which the terror threat comes [call it a policy of reverse assimilation by the police] has resulted in a decision which will effectively end the ability of the police department to take preemptive action against future terror plots.
In an agreement just reached, the Metropolitan Police must henceforth gain the approval of a board of Muslim advisers before either raiding suspected terrorist activity or making arrests involving Muslim suspects.
The creation of this additional impediment to what is roundly agreed to be an already lax attitude towards terror was the brainchild of the Metro Police and the MSF [Muslim Safety Forum] The MSF's stated aims are, "to scrutinize police activities that have been affecting the Muslim community" meaning thwarting any measures the government implements to counter terrorism.
On the one hand the Muslim community tells the government that terrorism is a reaction to UK foreign policy, issuing veiled threats that unless there is a major policy change non Muslims in the UK can expect more attacks from angry Muslims, while at the same time complaining that the government has not reached out or funded them enough, and that they are the key to thwarting terrorism.
It's no surprise that the new terror review board grew out of this process of appeasing radical Muslim sentiment. What is utterly mystifying is that these civilians will now have access to sensitive intelligence information presumably including methods and sources upon the mere assurance from them that they will not disclose the information.
Of particular note, the members of this advisory board will not even be required to sign the official secrets act, Britain's law enforcing the non-disclosure of the country's most highly classified security information.
This policy will of course make it even more difficult for the police to rein in clear and present terror dangers such as that posed by Abu Izzadeen, an Islamist cleric [and spiritual leader of the now banned Saved Sect] who has stated:
"In the UK no fighting takes place yet, but don't be fooled, the time will come to you brothers . . . fighting is so close at hand...You prepare yourself now and when the hard time comes you are ready to defend yourself; you are ready to die for the sake of Allah." ©1999-2006 Beila Rabinowitz & William A. Mayer/PipeLineNews.org, all rights reserved.

[Iceman]

I don't understand the dilema...if you or I were to refuse a duty given us by our work we either do it or have no job....it is as simple as that...If I have a conflict of conscience with what my employer is doing I quit I don't cry foul on the company they are doing what they do because it is there business.In this case the business is police work...to pick and choose duties like this...wow...scary place to be...hope you are not in this mans beat when he decides his beliefs dictate he cannot save you from a gunner because of the religion you belong too...wrong precident indeed being set there.

Me personally I would only accept guarding places where beautiful neked women were and where they served beer. :)I would thankfully do my duties there..yea uh huh.

[micky1up]

your quite correct this officer seems quite happy to get his pay and perks as a police oficer in the uk but dosent want to do the job he swore to do

[STEED]

your quite correct this officer seems quite happy to get his pay and perks as a police oficer in the uk but dosent want to do the job he swore to do

Well said. :up:

[Narcosis]

What I can not understand, is why the majority of these Muslims coming from abroad. Say they are seeking Asylum in the UK from persecution from where they come from and yet, stay here when they see this kind of headlines:

http://www.express.co.uk/news_detail.html?sku=518


Is it the overcast weather and rain we have?
Is it the large scale Christian majority that they want to live with?
Or could it be that we are Allies of the USA?


Or is it state benefits?








(http://www.express.co.uk/news_detail.html?sku=518)

[joea]

What I can not understand, is why the majority of these Muslims coming from abroad.

(http://www.express.co.uk/news_detail.html?sku=518)

Ummm weren't most Muslims, at least Asian (in the British sense of the word) in the UK actually born there?

[snowsub]

:x Now not even the blind are safe.... :nope: :nope: :nope:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=408912&in_page_id=1770

[STEED]

What I can not understand, is why the majority of these Muslims coming from abroad.

Is it the overcast weather and rain we have?
Is it the large scale Christian majority that they want to live with?
Or could it be that we are Allies of the USA?


Or is it state benefits?

The State benefit is a good little number for them and teenage mothers.

[scandium]

Motivations for this and the wounded-soldier-being-threatend-incident(other thread) of course do not arise from Quran and Hadith, but must be regarded as pervertions and absuing Muslim faith only. Because Islam teaches tolerance, equality, peace. :88)

*shrug* where's the problem? Embassies are treated as, for all intents and purposes, part and property of the state they belong to, thus in guarding the Israeli embassy he would in effect be guarding the state of Israel... and given his stated reason for not wanting to do that, why should he? If it were me I wouldn't either, and I'm not a Muslim. But as usual you ascribe the actions, even the peaceful, non-violent kinds such as this one which you attack them for not doing, of one individual Muslim to the entire Muslim population and their religion... which is stereotyping, but here you are going off about "tolerance, equality, peace" - where is your tolerance and respect for someone who doesn't share your unconditional support of Israel and their chosen non-violent method of protest?

You seem to want it both ways here, as usual, on this issue. Would your reaction, or anyone else's, be the same if say a British Jew refused to guard the Iranian embassy? Somehow I doubt it.

[snowsub]

And what about all those innocent people who are walking by that embassy??????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????

I suppose they peserve it?
(collateral damage??)

The law protect everyone, not just the ones you want.

[Skybird]

Police meanwhile has tried to explain the issue as concerns of the officer in question regarding his family - if he would be filmed on tV, his family may be hurt. If that is so, he is susceptible to blackmail. the question then is if such a person, no matter his faith and ideological background, can be accepted to vital public services and security duties. My answer is: No.

Or he has been withdrawn from service at the embassy for his superiors did not trust him when wokring there. That would mean he is not trustworthy in his job. Again the question then is if such a person, no matter his faith and ideological background, can be accepted to vital public services and security duties. My answer is: No.

Or he sees fulfilling his duties -and part of that duty is to guard an ebassy if he is ordered to - as a violation of his ideological background or faith. then his faith/ideology collides witzh the non-negotioable demands of his job to which he must fully comply. If he can'T or won't do that, it is to be asked if he could be accepted in vital public services and security duties. My answer is: no. If you are in the policy or military, you are not entering a democracy, but a hierarchy that bases on the principle of orders, and obeying orders. If in a battle during war, or a critical security event, or processes of decision making, the obeying of orders is left to the individual, you have two results: a.) you have no trustworthy police and military institutions anymore, you are unable to react with speed if every order will be discussed or will get decided by majoirty decision of offciers on the street/in the field; you will never know if your orders will be carried out, or ignored, or if subordinates even turn against you; and b.) you violate the principle of separating law making (politics), law-interpreting (courts) and law-enforcing (police). what Scandium accepts in his posting above is that the police officers in the future will no longer depend on the law and the obeying of orders, but instead make their own laws that replaces their legal obligations and dsuties. And that is totally unacceptable. Police is not free to decide if it wants to enforce this or that aspect of a given law - it has to stick to the law, without discussion. The luxury of choosing situation when to do it and when not - a polcie officer never has. Police-officers do not interpret the law - they enforce it. If they have a problem with that, they have to leave service.

so, no matter what the scenario is and how you look at it: I always come to the conclusion that leaving this man in police service is unacceptable. He either do his job fully and uncompromisingly, or he doesn't. In military and police, there is no in-between. You are either a a cop, or you are not.

[Narcosis]

What I can not understand, is why the majority of these Muslims coming from abroad.

(http://www.express.co.uk/news_detail.html?sku=518)
Ummm weren't most Muslims, at least Asian (in the British sense of the word) in the UK actually born there?



No.


Where on earth do you get that idea? I hope you don’t educate your self reading our newspapers. Every one knows that newspapers here concoct a load of bollocks.

UK immigration is a massive problem. That is why we send some of these fanatics mouthing off about our country back to where the came from, Abroad.
That is why many more are getting free English lessons, because they come from Pakistan in their 10000s a year.

Don't you think it is odd, that one day out of the blue, Muslims born here decided to get up and protest against British Policy in Iraq and the Middle East? If you thought the majority were born here?

Why did they not protest during Iraq War 1
Why not against Israel when they were kicking ass in Lebanon years ago?
Why didn’t they protest when Bosnia and the Muslims were getting slaughtered before NATO jumped in a few years later, to save their butts (which they forget about to easy).


Well it’s simple. Pakistan families now come to the UK in their 10,000s a year.

Here is a link to check it all . http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration1.html

[scandium]

And what about all those innocent people who are walking by that embassy??????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????

I suppose they peserve it?
(collateral damage??)

The law protect everyone, not just the ones you want.
That about sums things up for all of the innocent Lebanese civilians killed by the IDF - "collateral damage". Only nobody gave a damn because they're Arabs, of course, and mostly Muslim as well; so instead you get outraged over a hypothetical and one man's moral/political decision not to protect the embassy and outlaw regime it represents, whose IDF was founded on a network of Israeli terrorist cells that amalgated to form the then newly created "Israeli Defence Forces" and which routinely flaunts international laws.

Then there is the matter of the Israelis celebrating, while they were recently bombing Lebanon to rubble, the anniversary of the Israeli terrorist bombing of the King David hotel which killed scores of British nationals. So no, I don't blame him; and no, the law does not protect everyone, and it is not about "everyone" but the embassy itself and what it represents.

This guy made a political/moral decision and that is all there is to it. You and I make them all of the time as well, though I doubt anyone's ever used your religion as a basis for attacking the ethical decisions you've made, have they? And there is the difference. And again, I wouldn't do it and I'm a Christian, which is kind of hard to square with the "logic" running throughout this thread seeing as how this guy's choice was so obviously because he's "Muslim" and therefore typical, while I am not Muslim... but that's the problem with stereotyping and trying to put everyone into neat little categories because they happen to be Muslim, or American, or German. Its just nonsense. People to need to grow up, get out more and try broadening their little circle of friends beyond those of the same race/religion... maybe then we'd see some sanity in the world. The intolerant crap and stereotyping from various posters in threads like this and Jihad are just two sides of the same coin and only serves to pour fuel on the fire.

[Skybird]

If that guy in Britain rates his private moral as higher than the laws of his nation and the obligational duties of his job as a police officer - it might be a good idea if he doesn't serve in that job. That simple.

But I give it to Scandium that the Lebanon war was a waste. As much as I defended - and still defend - the initial goal of it (reducing or neutralizing completely Hezbollah's power structures and presence and influence, as well destroying it's logistical and intel networks and military capacities in general), as much I attack and criticise the incompetent pre-planning and extremely bad preparation that led to the IDF effort turning into a desaster that in fact meant a major strategical defeat for Israel and prooves all the damage and destruction being done as simply this: a waste and thus: needless. If one votes for war, one must go all the way and prepare better and fight with all ruthlessness possible, that'S why I demanded and waited for more adequate Israeli intervention. When it became evident that they would not do it and fought this war uncorrected and with half a heart only, they lost me, for the destruction and killing they did was commited all for nothing. Result of that war fought by dilletants: Israel'S situation is more probolemtic than before. Idiots. That's what happens if one draws a sword only half way out of it's sheathe, and having extremely bad intel about one's enemy. The only thing that was gained is evidence how dangerous Hezbollah actually really is, and what potent a military force.

BTW, what Scandium - as so very often before - is doing AGAIN is to ignore some important details about "certain poster's" (I feel directly adressed ;) ) biographies. In my case: that I have foreign friends, or had them, and have dealt with Muslims inside and outside of Germany, and that I still do know such people who actually agree with me while still being Muslims, but they have realized that they already have somewhat turned their backs on certain key elements and basic principles of Islamic ideology, which qualifies them to be described as no true Muslims anymore.

And no, Scandium, in opposition to your suggestive language I would not accept a Jewish policeman rejecting duty at the Iranian embassy in Germany. In fact, if I would have a say in it, there would not be an Iranian embassy at all as long as the policy of Iran towards the West is so extremely hostile. There is nothing to talk with them as long as they are like they are. Instead of iranian embassies, we would have reserach centres focussing on how we could push and enforce technologies and energy-productions on industrial level that do not depend on oil imports from Iran anymore. That'S a better way to spend taxes than wasting them in guarding buildings of hostile nations. If they want to talk to us, they can use the telephone, or CNN. ;) :lol:

[TteFAboB]

Mr. Scandium,

You accuse posters of this thread of stereotyping Muslims, but you stereotype Israelis.

Then you state you are a Christian, I thought you were a Bhuddist or agnostic, and accuse posters of having a problematic logic. If this Muslim policemen worked as a firefighter and if you were trapped inside a building on fire and he decided to peacefully protest by not going inside the building as he'd have to enter and walk through a Jewish shop at the first floor, you wouldn't be here today. Your logic does not apply to yourself - Muslim workers can protest, but if they did so while you were in need of their service you would die.

The Muslim policemen has no way of telling who's inside that Embassy, British Muslims, British citizens, British Christians, foreign Muslims. He has no way of telling, he does not know it and cannot know it. On what ground does he base his political/moral decision then? On his ignorance of facts? On facade, on the surface, on the cover of the book? Not all Israelis are members of the Army and there are Israeli socialists calling for the end of Israel, should they suffer too? Because they were born in Israel they should accept the stereotyping in the name of the greater cause. What about the Arabs and Muslims with Israeli citizenship? Damned for meddling with the enemy.

Ignorance has not affected his decision, nor it affects yours:

People to need to grow up, get out more and try broadening their little circle of friends beyond those of the same race/religion... maybe then we'd see some sanity in the world

How can you tell that this is the truth? I failed to discover your religion, I thought you were a Bhuddist or rejected all Christian churches, now you prove me wrong, and you want to convince me you know the circle of friends of the posters on this thread?

I suggest every poster here proves scandium wrong if that's the case. My circle of friends includes Arab immigrants, African descendants, Japanese and Korean immigrants and "Native Americans". I am myself a member of all "races": Indoeuropean, Asiatic and African. If having friends of all races or having mixed blood yourself puts one at an advantage, I await for your description, as I do not know it, before calling the advantage to myself.

Anyway, I don't think a world where policemen decide if they want to work or not, protesting on political/moral decisions based on the ignorance of facts, would be a world of sanity.

[NEON DEON]

It is a police officer’s duty to enforce the law. There can be no deviation from that.

What I am failing to see here is why there is an issue against Alexander Basha in the first place.

“Britain's top policeman has launched an urgent review into the decision to excuse a Muslim police officer from guarding London's Israeli Embassy on moral grounds.”

The Officer was excused from duty by his superiors. The officer did not refuse the duty he was excused.

“Britain's top policeman has launched an urgent review into the decision to excuse a Muslim police officer from guarding London's Israeli Embassy on moral grounds.”

It is the decision being reviewed here not the officer.

“But the Association of Muslim Police said it was a "welfare" matter- the officer had Christian and Muslim relatives in Lebanon and was concerned for his safety.” ***

Is that statement true? Does the supervisor involved confirm that?

If so, then why would the officer’s supervisor not excuse him if someone else was available to do the job?

*** I believe the quote should read “was concerned for their safety” as opposed to his safety. It does not follow with the rest of the content in the quote. I have written to sky news to ask for clarification.

[STEED]

If that guy in Britain rates his private moral as higher than the laws of his nation and the obligational duties of his job as a police officer - it might be a good idea if he doesn't serve in that job. That simple.

Here, here.

[Narcosis]

It is a police officer’s duty to enforce the law. There can be no deviation from that.

What I am failing to see here is why there is an issue against Alexander Basha in the first place.



The Officer was excused from duty by his superiors. The officer did not refuse the duty he was excused.


The fact . The police officer in question " Objected to his duty and asked to be excused"

He refused to be posted there because he objected to Israeli bombings in Lebanon and the resulting civilian casualties of fellow Muslims.

Any thing else you hear, is Police tactical waffle. To stop the anti muslim feeling growing already across the UK.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23369651-details/Muslim+PC+wins+right+not+to+protect+Israeli+Embass y/article.do

[NEON DEON]

It is a police officer’s duty to enforce the law. There can be no deviation from that.

What I am failing to see here is why there is an issue against Alexander Basha in the first place.



The Officer was excused from duty by his superiors. The officer did not refuse the duty he was excused.


The fact . The police officer in question " Objected to his duty and asked to be excused"



[/url]

Exactly! :up:

He was excused.

Had the supervisor ordered him to go and he refused then sure sack him!

But alas he did not.

PS:

IMHO

If you want to start a witch hunt, then start with his supervisor.:p

[Skybird]

It is a police officer’s duty to enforce the law. There can be no deviation from that.

What I am failing to see here is why there is an issue against Alexander Basha in the first place.

“Britain's top policeman has launched an urgent review into the decision to excuse a Muslim police officer from guarding London's Israeli Embassy on moral grounds.”

The Officer was excused from duty by his superiors. The officer did not refuse the duty he was excused.

“Britain's top policeman has launched an urgent review into the decision to excuse a Muslim police officer from guarding London's Israeli Embassy on moral grounds.”

It is the decision being reviewed here not the officer.

“But the Association of Muslim Police said it was a "welfare" matter- the officer had Christian and Muslim relatives in Lebanon and was concerned for his safety.” ***

Is that statement true? Does the supervisor involved confirm that?

If so, then why would the officer’s supervisor not excuse him if someone else was available to do the job?

*** I believe the quote should read “was concerned for their safety” as opposed to his safety. It does not follow with the rest of the content in the quote. I have written to sky news to ask for clarification.

Police meanwhile has tried to explain the issue as concerns of the officer in question regarding his family - if he would be filmed on tV, his family may be hurt. If that is so, he is susceptible to blackmail. the question then is if such a person, no matter his faith and ideological background, can be accepted to vital public services and security duties. My answer is: No.

.....

[NEON DEON]

It is a police officer’s duty to enforce the law. There can be no deviation from that.

What I am failing to see here is why there is an issue against Alexander Basha in the first place.

“Britain's top policeman has launched an urgent review into the decision to excuse a Muslim police officer from guarding London's Israeli Embassy on moral grounds.”

The Officer was excused from duty by his superiors. The officer did not refuse the duty he was excused.

“Britain's top policeman has launched an urgent review into the decision to excuse a Muslim police officer from guarding London's Israeli Embassy on moral grounds.”

It is the decision being reviewed here not the officer.

“But the Association of Muslim Police said it was a "welfare" matter- the officer had Christian and Muslim relatives in Lebanon and was concerned for his safety.” ***

Is that statement true? Does the supervisor involved confirm that?

If so, then why would the officer’s supervisor not excuse him if someone else was available to do the job?

*** I believe the quote should read “was concerned for their safety” as opposed to his safety. It does not follow with the rest of the content in the quote. I have written to sky news to ask for clarification.

Police meanwhile has tried to explain the issue as concerns of the officer in question regarding his family - if he would be filmed on tV, his family may be hurt. If that is so, he is susceptible to blackmail. the question then is if such a person, no matter his faith and ideological background, can be accepted to vital public services and security duties. My answer is: No.

.....

That would mean you would have to fire every police officer with a family.

Why? He could be blackmailed if someone held his family hostage.

That would make for a very small police force.;)

[Skybird]

Not many have a family in a country with war or civil war of anarchy or terror threat or Islamism being a major factor there. ;)

there are stubborn rumours that the french military did not intervene during the heights of those suburb riots for only one reason: close to 20% of the military are Muslims and would have needed to confront the muslim mobsters in these suburbs. The french generals did not have too much confidence in their army. I know I know, just some essay in medias and rumours - but some that live surpisingly long and stubborn.

In Germany, Ex-Stasi-members and active known confessing Fascists/Neonazis can be banned from certain jobs of vital interest (education, for example), or jobs that would allow them to abuse their position as a platform to propagate their opinion. It is not perfect system, but it helps and is legally anchored in the law. I would have no problem to see that behavior expanded to include Islam as well, for the same reason asFascists are banned: hostility towards the constitutional order and attempt to overthrow it and the laws of the Federal Republic of Germany. I also would like to see western constitutions being equipped with an additonal paragraph that excludes Islam from being considered as a religion that could demand the constitutional protection for free religious practicng, because: Islam does not differ between state and religion and by demanding religious freedom it absues these freedoms to push political agendas - and call that politically intrusion "religion". Practically Islam is a politically ambitioned instruction for individual and communal action anyway, aiming at controlling the commnity as well as the individual and not only defend but expand Islam against resistance from outside. The constitutions so far are completely helpless against this abuse - and thus gets abused indeed. Thois has a tremendous paralysing effect on Wetssern attempts to resist islamic efforts. A mosque is not just a pendant to a church, it has a function reaching beyond that of a temple only, it is a center of community life, social nexus and platform for political activity as well. I saw that in all Muslim nations were I ever have been, and have no reason to believe it is different in europe and Germany.

[NEON DEON]

I believe in the total separation of church and state.

However, along with that comes religious freedom. That does not mean you have the right to impose your religious beliefs on people of different religions. That is where the separation of church and state comes in. Religious law does not preempt state law. That should be very clear.

If you believe that someone or some group is telling people to go out and kill people, then that is a terrorist act. Report it immediately to the local authorities. It would help to have some proof before you go. Also: Try and not rely on hearsay or innuendo.

[scandium]

Mr. Scandium,

You accuse posters of this thread of stereotyping Muslims, but you stereotype Israelis.

Then you state you are a Christian, I thought you were a Bhuddist or agnostic, and accuse posters of having a problematic logic. If this Muslim policemen worked as a firefighter and if you were trapped inside a building on fire and he decided to peacefully protest by not going inside the building as he'd have to enter and walk through a Jewish shop at the first floor, you wouldn't be here today. Your logic does not apply to yourself - Muslim workers can protest, but if they did so while you were in need of their service you would die.

Silly hypothetical. He refused to guard the embassy. Full Stop.

Obviously someone else was posted in his place so the function is still being performed.

And policemen are confronted with moral/ethical choices all the time; it is why they may let one speeder off with a warning but ticket another, etc.

[NEON DEON]

Mr. Scandium,

You accuse posters of this thread of stereotyping Muslims, but you stereotype Israelis.

Then you state you are a Christian, I thought you were a Bhuddist or agnostic, and accuse posters of having a problematic logic. If this Muslim policemen worked as a firefighter and if you were trapped inside a building on fire and he decided to peacefully protest by not going inside the building as he'd have to enter and walk through a Jewish shop at the first floor, you wouldn't be here today. Your logic does not apply to yourself - Muslim workers can protest, but if they did so while you were in need of their service you would die.

Silly hypothetical. He refused to guard the embassy. Full Stop.

Obviously someone else was posted in his place so the function is still being performed.

And policemen are confronted with moral/ethical choices all the time; it is why they may let one speeder off with a warning but ticket another, etc.

The officer was excused from embassy duty by his superior. FULL STOP.

Now had his superior said tough go to the embassy anyway.

Then sure sack him.

[Iceman]

I'm sorry...did you say you are a Christian Scandium?....I thought your keyboard slipped or something and meant to type something else. A follower of Jesus Christ teachings ??? Don't mean to hijack the thread but...You are a Christian??? You my friend need to re-examine your self concerning Isreal if you call your self a Christian. Isreal is God's chosen land and the Jews his chosen people acording to any Christian bible I have ever looked at...you remind me of Saul/Paul kicking against the pricks.

Acts 9
[4] And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
[5] And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

Sorry this just hit me broadside like a torp. :):help:

[micky1up]

Motivations for this and the wounded-soldier-being-threatend-incident(other thread) of course do not arise from Quran and Hadith, but must be regarded as pervertions and absuing Muslim faith only. Because Islam teaches tolerance, equality, peace. :88)

*shrug* where's the problem? Embassies are treated as, for all intents and purposes, part and property of the state they belong to, thus in guarding the Israeli embassy he would in effect be guarding the state of Israel... and given his stated reason for not wanting to do that, why should he? If it were me I wouldn't either, and I'm not a Muslim. But as usual you ascribe the actions, even the peaceful, non-violent kinds such as this one which you attack them for not doing, of one individual Muslim to the entire Muslim population and their religion... which is stereotyping, but here you are going off about "tolerance, equality, peace" - where is your tolerance and respect for someone who doesn't share your unconditional support of Israel and their chosen non-violent method of protest?

You seem to want it both ways here, as usual, on this issue. Would your reaction, or anyone else's, be the same if say a British Jew refused to guard the Iranian embassy? Somehow I doubt it.


why should he are you really that thick he swore an oath to do his job his job is very well paid and what if every policeman decides he wants to only protect what he believes in what if your family came under attack and you phoned the cops and they said oh well i dont like you so tough not only that some other cop would have had to be pulled from other duties to do the work of this work shy twat and if he had an ounce of sense he would realise that hesbolla started the said incident by kidnapping israels soldiers