Muslim Policemans Protest (Merged)

[STEED]

Originally Posted by 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

Well said.

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?

[joea]

Originally Posted by Narcosis

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

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

[snowsub]

Now not even the blind are safe....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1770

[STEED]

Originally Posted by Narcosis

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

*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.

Originally Posted by joea

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

Here, here.

Originally Posted by 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"

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/a...ssy/article.do