Political Crossfire Forums

[lilwolf]

If he does not perform his duties, then can his ass. I would not want him around if he is that bias. He has a duty and swore an oath, so fire him

[mendosan]

Bonobo wrote: mendosan wrote: Quote: Or are you now saying that if you disagree with UK Middle Eastern policy you shouldn't hold any job that may entail supporting Israel?

You probably shouldn't be a diplomatic Guard, thats just commen sense.


He is a policeman ... someone who has decided to risk his life daily to try and help protect hsi community, and I would imagine it is this honour and morale code that prevents him protecting the murderers of his people.

What part you can't understand about this I really don't know. Israel has just made 1,000,000 of his people homeless, killed however many more, and you people have the nerve to sugegst he isn't fair for not defending the Israeli Embassy?




As for all the 'police shouldn't decide who they protect', they don't. One man made a decision based on personal reasons, it in no way implies 'every policeman' etc..

For a start hes a British policeman, and he applied for the job of a Diplomatic Guard. He swore an oath to the Queen to defend the law of the land, with impartiality and without prejudice, he did not object because Israel was at war with Hezzbollah (his wife is Lebbanese).

He doesn't choose which embassy he wants to guard that's not how it works, ToonArmyIsComing has already adressed this.

Quote: this saddens me to be honest. If the police get political in who they decide to protect, what is going to happen when it comes to responding to a 911 call from a battered Muslim woman or a homosexual victim of a homophobic attack? Will the officer who turns up just say "I am sorry, I can't protect you because you are a degenerate who needs to be wiped off the face of the earth" ... shocking to say the least.

Do you seriously think Police should just pick and choose which dutys they perform?

[Bonobo]

mendosan wrote: Bonobo wrote: mendosan wrote: Quote: Or are you now saying that if you disagree with UK Middle Eastern policy you shouldn't hold any job that may entail supporting Israel?

You probably shouldn't be a diplomatic Guard, thats just commen sense.


He is a policeman ... someone who has decided to risk his life daily to try and help protect hsi community, and I would imagine it is this honour and morale code that prevents him protecting the murderers of his people.

What part you can't understand about this I really don't know. Israel has just made 1,000,000 of his people homeless, killed however many more, and you people have the nerve to sugegst he isn't fair for not defending the Israeli Embassy?




As for all the 'police shouldn't decide who they protect', they don't. One man made a decision based on personal reasons, it in no way implies 'every policeman' etc..

For a start hes a British policeman, and he applied for the job of a Diplomatic Guard. He swore an oath to the Queen to defend the law of the land, with impartiality and without prejudice, he did not object because Israel was at war with Hezzbollah (his wife is Lebbanese).

He doesn't choose which embassy he wants to guard that's not how it works, ToonArmyIsComing has already adressed this.

Quote: this saddens me to be honest. If the police get political in who they decide to protect, what is going to happen when it comes to responding to a 911 call from a battered Muslim woman or a homosexual victim of a homophobic attack? Will the officer who turns up just say "I am sorry, I can't protect you because you are a degenerate who needs to be wiped off the face of the earth" ... shocking to say the least.

Do you seriously think Police should just pick and choose which dutys they perform?


I'll admit I didn't know he had specifically signed up for diplomatic duties, merely that he was parto f a higher ranked group that dealt with VIP's.

However I guess this comes down to your opinion on the Israel Lebanon war.


If you think Israel killing thousands and making millions homeless in the hope of getting back 2 soldiers (good luck with that) is justified, then I guess your going to side against the policeman.


If for some odd reason you don't see an Israeli life being worth a few thousand arab ones, and view lebanese disgust at Israel's actions as perfectly warranted, then his position is not only understandable but imho encouragable. It's called standing up for what you believe in - again I'm ignoring the who families safety reason cause I'm pretty sure that was irrelevant - however to question someones morality because they refuse to guard the embassy of the nation that has just raped your wife's homeland, you need to learn what morality is.

[mendosan]

Bonobo wrote: mendosan wrote: Bonobo wrote: mendosan wrote: Quote: Or are you now saying that if you disagree with UK Middle Eastern policy you shouldn't hold any job that may entail supporting Israel?

You probably shouldn't be a diplomatic Guard, thats just commen sense.


He is a policeman ... someone who has decided to risk his life daily to try and help protect hsi community, and I would imagine it is this honour and morale code that prevents him protecting the murderers of his people.

What part you can't understand about this I really don't know. Israel has just made 1,000,000 of his people homeless, killed however many more, and you people have the nerve to sugegst he isn't fair for not defending the Israeli Embassy?




As for all the 'police shouldn't decide who they protect', they don't. One man made a decision based on personal reasons, it in no way implies 'every policeman' etc..

For a start hes a British policeman, and he applied for the job of a Diplomatic Guard. He swore an oath to the Queen to defend the law of the land, with impartiality and without prejudice, he did not object because Israel was at war with Hezzbollah (his wife is Lebbanese).

He doesn't choose which embassy he wants to guard that's not how it works, ToonArmyIsComing has already adressed this.

Quote: this saddens me to be honest. If the police get political in who they decide to protect, what is going to happen when it comes to responding to a 911 call from a battered Muslim woman or a homosexual victim of a homophobic attack? Will the officer who turns up just say "I am sorry, I can't protect you because you are a degenerate who needs to be wiped off the face of the earth" ... shocking to say the least.

Do you seriously think Police should just pick and choose which dutys they perform?


I'll admit I didn't know he had specifically signed up for diplomatic duties, merely that he was parto f a higher ranked group that dealt with VIP's.

However I guess this comes down to your opinion on the Israel Lebanon war.


If you think Israel killing thousands and making millions homeless in the hope of getting back 2 soldiers (good luck with that) is justified, then I guess your going to side against the policeman.


If for some odd reason you don't see an Israeli life being worth a few thousand arab ones, and view lebanese disgust at Israel's actions as perfectly warranted, then his position is not only understandable but imho encouragable. It's called standing up for what you believe in - again I'm ignoring the who families safety reason cause I'm pretty sure that was irrelevant - however to question someones morality because they refuse to guard the embassy of the nation that has just raped your wife's homeland, you need to learn what morality is.

I respect where you are coming from Bonobo, but he is a British police officer and if he feels he can't do his job on moral grounds, he should resign. Not ask to be moved somewhere else that is setting a dangerous president, there should be no special treatment given to specific officers.

Quote: John O'Connor, a former Flying Squad commander, told today's Sun: "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?"
www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1887967,00.html

That quote hits the nail on the head.

[Bonobo]

When we are discussing one cop out of the tens of thousands, I guess the word 'alarmist' will have to do to label this the end of British policing.

I for onehave huge respect in a policeman doing what his concious tells him to do rather than what the law does, much the same as I respect policemen who throw a kid's eight baggy down the drain rather than waste about 9 man hours in processing him and giving him a worthless caution.

[Venom]

Bonobo
Quote: All I said was his wife and some of his family were from Lebanon, with some members still there.

If you contest that look it up.
:lol:

Quote: Dealing with your 'if a cop isn't willing to risk it why become a cop', if you can find any cop who is willing to risk his families life in order to perform an innane task with no real benefit which can easily be performed by someone else at no risk, you've found yourself an idiotic cop who obviously has no love for his family.
See your whole outlook is incorrect. Being a cop is a risk in and of itself. Anyone guarding the Israeli Embassy is putting themselves at a risk. Being a cop makes your dealing with criminals. So I guess the next time a UK Cop who's family lives in the UK doesn't want to put them at risk by arrestign a murderer then he is in the moral right according to you.

Quote: John O'Connor, a former commander of Scotland Yard's flying squad, said police dealt with welfare issues all the time and a common example was when an officer lived in an area of high crime and requested a move because he feared for his friends and family.

If Pc Basha had had safety concerns as the war in Lebanon escalated, he should have been transferred off the unit immediately, he said - a point echoed by several former officers who served on that unit and contacted the BBC News website.

"But I can't think of any moral grounds for refusing to do your duty, which is what you are paid to do and what the public pays you to do," said Mr O'Connor


Quote: Again, even irrelevant of his family being put at risk, I see his stance as perfectly understandable.
He filed to not protect someone due to their foriegn policy how is that understandable? The man does not want to protect the jewish state of Israel's embassy. He is a bigot towards Jews.

Quote: If you're suggesting that every time you disagree with one of your countries foreign policies you should stop working for it, good luck to you, however I'm sure he signed up to be a policeman to protect his community and friends, not to protect the embassy of the nation killing his family and friends abroad.

Your right if I tried to not work because of countries foriegn policies and my personal stance I could be fired. Now yes he did sign up to protect his community and his friends. Guess what.... protecting the embassy of a nation killing his family and friends is part of his job. It's part of his community. An Israeli Embassy is a great target for terrorism. Isn't that a risk to his community and his friends?

Quote: Or are you now saying that if you disagree with UK Middle Eastern policy you shouldn't hold any job that may entail supporting Israel?
No I am saying if you cannot continue to perform your job because of your disagreement then you shouldn't hold that job. Would it be ok if he refused to protect the French Embassy because he didn't agree with their policies? No.

This man is a bigot and should be fired.

Quote: He is a policeman ... someone who has decided to risk his life daily to try and help protect hsi community, and I would imagine it is this honour and morale code that prevents him protecting the murderers of his people. Your whole idea here is that his own personal feelings should be allowed to make decisions on a job he voluntered to do (he wasn't forced to become a job). So if his moral code and honor prevents him from doing this job... find a different line of work.

Quote: What part you can't understand about this I really don't know. Israel has just made 1,000,000 of his people homeless, killed however many more, and you people have the nerve to sugegst he isn't fair for not defending the Israeli Embassy?
His people? I could have sworn he lived in the UK..... is he even Lebanese? I haven't read anything that said he was... well besides your unsourced remarks. Even in that you said his wife and some of his family was Lebanese.... not him.
Quote: As for all the 'police shouldn't decide who they protect', they don't. One man made a decision based on personal reasons, it in no way implies 'every policeman' etc..
What it does imply is that if you disagree with a certain group and don't want to protect them you apparently don't have to.

Quote: However I guess this comes down to your opinion on the Israel Lebanon war.
No it doesn't. He has a job to perform... what does that have to do with the Israel Lebanon war?

Quote: If you think Israel killing thousands and making millions homeless in the hope of getting back 2 soldiers (good luck with that) is justified, then I guess your going to side against the policeman.
That is not even an issue of this subject.

Quote: If for some odd reason you don't see an Israeli life being worth a few thousand arab ones, and view lebanese disgust at Israel's actions as perfectly warranted, then his position is not only understandable but imho encouragable. It's called standing up for what you believe in - again I'm ignoring the who families safety reason cause I'm pretty sure that was irrelevant - however to question someones morality because they refuse to guard the embassy of the nation that has just raped your wife's homeland, you need to learn what morality is.
Your preaching anarchy here. Everyone should just put ignore their sworn duties and do as what they believe in according to you. Ang again your ignoring a sworn duty and allowing some other guys family to be in the exact risk your avoiding. Allowing someone to refuse their sworn duty because of their own personel views is dangerous. Why? Well if police that didn't agree with the UK's foriegn policy stopped protecting the country I guess that's ok by your standards. Hey you could even say that they felt their families were at an elevated risk because they walked routes around possible terrorist targets (anything with civilians) and therefore their family was at an elevated risk. So allow the domino affect to begin if others are as much of obvious bigots as this cop.



Deus
Quote: Israel != jews

Its based on Israels action not the jews.
Israel is a Jewish State... has a Jewish symbol on their flag... was a state created for the Jews by the United Nations... it's enemies refer to them as the Jews and not the Israeli people. It's quite fair to call Israel Jews.


Slitedeviance
Quote: Wait, why is this even a GD issue? Because it was front page of some Murdoch owned piece of trash tabloid?
The BBC is reporting it, it's being quitely reported in the United States. I bet it would an issue in your mind if a Jew refused to guard a Lebanese Embassy.

mendosan
Quote: I think he was afraid of Muslims targeting his family in the UK, if they saw him guarding the embassy, the problem is he can't do the job, so he needs to be moved off diplomatic duty to a job he can do.

I can understand that fear, but isn't that the same for anyone in that job of guarding the Embassy?

[Bonobo]

Venom wrote:
This man is a bigot and should be fired.


How can you throw around such terms without at least stopping to think?

You label his anti Israeli stance as an anti Jewish one, itself a common practise in the 'if you disagree with Israel slaughtering arabs then you are a racist'.

You ignore the fact he has seen +1,000,000 people in his families homeland be made homeless, with however many killed. You ignore the fact he will have seen his people oppressed for decades, and simply try to label his perfectly legitimate concerns over the oppression of his people as 'anti jewish'.


Venom wrote:
His people? I could have sworn he lived in the UK..... is he even Lebanese? I haven't read anything that said he was... well besides your unsourced remarks. Even in that you said his wife and some of his family was Lebanese.... not him.


Hello? 'His wife may have been Lebanese along with his family, but that doesn't make the Lebanese his people.' I won't bother discussing the reasoning going on there. What makes a group of people your people if not your wife and family coming from there?

Venom wrote:
What it does imply is that if you disagree with a certain group and don't want to protect them you apparently don't have to.


Again, you're trying to trivialise the slaughter and mass displacement of a people for no legitimate reason, as 'disagreeing with a certain group.' It's not real debating, it's tabloid stuff. You're discussing the oppression of his people, your talking about someone who has seen his people be raped and pillaged by Israel, and you call him a bigot for not wanting to protect Israel's embassy.


Bonobo wrote: However I guess this comes down to your opinion on the Israel Lebanon war.

Venom wrote: No it doesn't. He has a job to perform... what does that have to do with the Israel Lebanon war?

So let's say you've joined the US army in the hope of doing some good in the world. You are ordered to torture a group of teenage arabs that were just brought in in order to gain info, something that goes against all your morales. In my opinion a true American would refuse to do this, irrelevant of his commitments made upon joining the army, as his own morale code (assuming it is strong enough) should override that.

If a corrupt president came in and tried to take his country into an illegal war based on lies, and a soldier thought this was the case, would a true American continue to serve him irrelevant of his commitments?

The same argument holds for deciding not to protect the slaughterer of your people.

Bonobo wrote: If you think Israel killing thousands and making millions homeless in the hope of getting back 2 soldiers (good luck with that) is justified, then I guess your going to side against the policeman.
Venom wrote: That is not even an issue of this subject.

HELLO? He doesn't want to protect the embassy due to morale grounds, i.e. his believing Israel is the perpetrator of breaking various UN and Geneva conventions, lying to the U.N and breaking the NPT,and a list of other attrocities I could fill a page with. And you say'But Israels mass slaughter and callous use of weapons against the Lebanese people doesn't matter'.

Absolutely incredible. I really don't know how else to debate this point if you genuinely believe the Israeli actions towards Lebanon recently are irrelevant to this. Quite shocking.


Bonobo wrote: If for some odd reason you don't see an Israeli life being worth a few thousand arab ones, and view lebanese disgust at Israel's actions as perfectly warranted, then his position is not only understandable but imho encouragable. It's called standing up for what you believe in - again I'm ignoring the who families safety reason cause I'm pretty sure that was irrelevant - however to question someones morality because they refuse to guard the embassy of the nation that has just raped your wife's homeland, you need to learn what morality is.
Venom wrote:
Your preaching anarchy here. Everyone should just put ignore their sworn duties and do as what they believe in according to you. Ang again your ignoring a sworn duty and allowing some other guys family to be in the exact risk your avoiding. Allowing someone to refuse their sworn duty because of their own personel views is dangerous. Why? Well if police that didn't agree with the UK's foriegn policy stopped protecting the country I guess that's ok by your standards. Hey you could even say that they felt their families were at an elevated risk because they walked routes around possible terrorist targets (anything with civilians) and therefore their family was at an elevated risk. So allow the domino affect to begin if others are as much of obvious bigots as this cop.

Allowme to make another parallel here. You're a German in early 1930's whose joined the army because you've seen how unfairly your country is being treated and believe it the right thing to do. You're then asked to slaughter hundreds of Jews a day at a concentration camp. Are you saying a morally just person would do this, merely because its their sworn duty?

It's such blind loyalty and "Patriotism" that leads to such situations. If people did what they believed was morally just rather than going with the flow, perhaps the world would be a better place.



I'm again expecting you to try and trivialise this as 'OK so muslims should kill non muslims cause they think it's the right thing to do', and other laughable comparisons that compare not defending the slaughterer of your people to being a murderer yourself.

[Plato & Socrates]

Bonobo wrote:
I'll admit I didn't know he had specifically signed up for diplomatic duties, merely that he was parto f a higher ranked group that dealt with VIP's.

However I guess this comes down to your opinion on the Israel Lebanon war.


If you think Israel killing thousands and making millions homeless in the hope of getting back 2 soldiers (good luck with that) is justified, then I guess your going to side against the policeman.


If for some odd reason you don't see an Israeli life being worth a few thousand arab ones, and view lebanese disgust at Israel's actions as perfectly warranted, then his position is not only understandable but imho encouragable. It's called standing up for what you believe in - again I'm ignoring the who families safety reason cause I'm pretty sure that was irrelevant - however to question someones morality because they refuse to guard the embassy of the nation that has just raped your wife's homeland, you need to learn what morality is.

Bobono wrote: When we are discussing one cop out of the tens of thousands, I guess the word 'alarmist' will have to do to label this the end of British policing.

I for onehave huge respect in a policeman doing what his concious tells him to do rather than what the law does, much the same as I respect policemen who throw a kid's eight baggy down the drain rather than waste about 9 man hours in processing him and giving him a worthless caution.

However much I would like to agree with you Bobono I cant. Heres my reason why, I wrote it in another thread on the same subject.

Plato & Socrates wrote: DSwain wrote: perdidochas wrote: DSwain wrote: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5408470.stm

Boy, this is dangerous. Whichever superior officers authorised this need to given a rocket aned PC Basha should be transferred to traffic as soon as possible.

On the other hand, it was foolish for them to assign him to guard the Israeli embassy. I would never assign someone of Arab descent to guard the Israeli Embassy. If nothing else, because the Muslim jihadists could use his family as a weapon against him.

I see where you're coming from but IMO that's the thin end of the wedge for that means you don't trust your officers. Muslim officers are aware of the risks when they take the oath and their families face threats just like those of any other police officer. It would be a very bad day when individual police officers are deployed dependent on risk assessment; if a situation requires a police presence and the general threat level is acceptable, then ANY officer of any gender or race should be able to deploy.

I'm torn. Firstly the guy is only human, his wife is Lebanese, her's and by marriage his extended family, was being bombed by the Israeli's in Lebanon at the time. He could have been all politically correct and say "I have no problem defending the Israeli embassy", when in truth he did. What would he have done if guarding the embassy a life and death situation occurred? He knew in his heart that if placed in that situation, his emotions could have effected his ability to conduct his work in the professional standard of the diplomatic security core of the Metropolitan police. I think it was commendable of him to be asked to taken off that job.

In saying that, he is in a special position and he swore an oath to do his job impartially and without prejudice.
In this he failed. We all know there are serving officers whether they are voting members of the BNP or Combat 18, or homophobic etc. Who swore an oath to do there job as a police officer impartially and without prejudice, but bring there baggage to work, and take out their prejudices on the public. We all know they exist, it is just part and parcel of the world we live in today. His brutal honesty will be his undoing. For what-ever my personal views are, in my opinion he has no place in the force. It is sad to say and it hurts me to say it, but he should'nt be allowed to serve anymore.

As an ideal, police officers are like doctors, they swear a special oath. I don't want to sound all P.C but he has to go.
I bet some in the non-P.C brigade will be having a field day over this. Its a funny situation this. Just imagine this, he could have kept quite. Whilst guarding the embassy a situation to protect a Israeli diplomat occurred. He hardly lifts a finger and the diplomat dies. He then says he tried his best. His superiors say well done for trying to save the Israeli diplomat, at least you tried.

Then 6 months later he gets a M.B.E from the Queen., knowing in his heart he did nothing to save the diplomat.
Or you could be honest and get chewed up by the press, cause a diplomatic and ethical row, the bloggers debate over his stance and then you lose your job and your police pension. Who the hell said honesty is the best policy eh? :twisted:

Police officers are in a special position just like doctors. They cannot pick and choose, and how-ever difficult a moral dilemma or ones personal views, professionalism must always win out. A doctor cannot choose who he decides to save or who he lets dies. As an Ideal the special oath police swear is sacrosanct, any deviation from that pledge and you are not fit to serve. I understand the officers extenuating circumstances. But this is going to be a classic case, of when telling the truth is counterproductive. we must never allow the Pandora's box of coppers choosing who to protect, and who not to protect. This as others have said before me, will be the death of policing in the UK if he allowed to stay, so he must go.

I would dearly love to defend this indefensible, because I despise the Israeli government. But to be honest to myself, it just cant be done. I leave the lying to oneself, to the other rats on this forum, who are adapt so and accustomed to defending the indefensible, and we all know who they are.

[Bonobo]

Plato & Socrates wrote:
Police officers are in a special position just like doctors. They cannot pick and choose, and how-ever difficult a moral dilemma or ones personal views, professionalism must always win out. A doctor cannot choose who he decides to save or who he lets dies. As an Ideal the special oath police swear is sacrosanct, any deviation from that pledge and you are not fit to serve. I understand the officers extenuating circumstances. But this is going to be a classic case, of when telling the truth is counterproductive. we must never allow the Pandora's box of coppers choosing who to protect, and who not to protect. This as others have said before me, will be the death of policing in the UK if he allowed to stay, so he must go.

I would dearly love to defend this indefensible, because I despise the Israeli government. But to be honest to myself, it just cant be done. I leave the lying to oneself, to the other rats on this forum, who are adapt so and accustomed to defending the indefensible, and we all know who they are.

First of all I hope it's clear my support of his stance has nothing to do with my support of his beliefs with regards to Israel, while they happen to coincide the issue at hand here is following orders regardless of morale implication.

Again, were a soldier to be asked to torture a group of civilians in the hope some info may be gleaned, would a 'true' morally just person do it?

I'm struggling to find better words than 'true' or 'morally just' however I hope the concept is understood.


I appreciate the concept of protecting without Christian, again like the hippocratic oath, however the two are not parallel.

For a doctor to refuse to aid someone would mean pain would be inflicted, the policeman was, let's be honest, in no way endangering anyone. A replacement policeman was found immediately, and nothing was left unserved.

Were he to come accross an Israeli being mugged in the street, I think we all agree he would have done something about it. This is not about the oath of serving and protecting, as nobodies protection was at risk, this is about a larger political statement that protecting the embassy would make. He wasn't prepared to make that statement and I have huge respect in placing himself in the national firing line for what he believes to be right.

[Pebble]

Quote:
Do you seriously think Police should just pick and choose which dutys they perform?


Stephen Lawrence.



It's not right, but it very defiantely happens.

The best argument I have seen is from another thread on this; it states that it may be ethical as a self vetting kind of thing. If one believes that they are incapable of doing their duty then one should explain that. However, we rely on the police to be impartial and this is clearly a grave issue.

[Plato & Socrates]

Bonobo wrote: Plato & Socrates wrote:
Police officers are in a special position just like doctors. They cannot pick and choose, and how-ever difficult a moral dilemma or ones personal views, professionalism must always win out. A doctor cannot choose who he decides to save or who he lets dies. As an Ideal the special oath police swear is sacrosanct, any deviation from that pledge and you are not fit to serve. I understand the officers extenuating circumstances. But this is going to be a classic case, of when telling the truth is counterproductive. we must never allow the Pandora's box of coppers choosing who to protect, and who not to protect. This as others have said before me, will be the death of policing in the UK if he allowed to stay, so he must go.

I would dearly love to defend this indefensible, because I despise the Israeli government. But to be honest to myself, it just cant be done. I leave the lying to oneself, to the other rats on this forum, who are adapt so and accustomed to defending the indefensible, and we all know who they are.

First of all I hope it's clear my support of his stance has nothing to do with my support of his beliefs with regards to Israel, while they happen to coincide the issue at hand here is following orders regardless of morale implication.

Again, were a soldier to be asked to torture a group of civilians in the hope some info may be gleaned, would a 'true' morally just person do it?

I'm struggling to find better words than 'true' or 'morally just' however I hope the concept is understood.


I appreciate the concept of protecting without Christian, again like the hippocratic oath, however the two are not parallel.

For a doctor to refuse to aid someone would mean pain would be inflicted, the policeman was, let's be honest, in no way endangering anyone. A replacement policeman was found immediately, and nothing was left unserved.

Were he to come accross an Israeli being mugged in the street, I think we all agree he would have done something about it. This is not about the oath of serving and protecting, as nobodies protection was at risk, this is about a larger political statement that protecting the embassy would make. He wasn't prepared to make that statement and I have huge respect in placing himself in the national firing line for what he believes to be right.

Maybe so, but serving as a police officer and objecting to assignment's, there can be no role for him to play in that force. This is the ideal he must stand up to. If he fails in that test, then he cant serve. What next a Jewish copper refuses to protect the Iranian embassy, because of Ahmadinejad holocaust remark, especially since he lost a grandad in the camps?. A black copper refuses to help a white man, because the BNP killed his brother? I admit very over the top examples, but you get the point.

This service is'nt a pick & mix or choose which assignment you'll take. It is the whole package or none at all. Many people dont live up to it. But to openly voice it? I know it is P.C.
But if we dont have ideals to live up to, and work by, then as a society we are on a rocky path.

[Venom]

Quote: How can you throw around such terms without at least stopping to think?
Easy, he is a muslim that refuses to guard the Israeli Embassy in the UK. Israel is seen by "his people" as a Jewish state. So a muslim that refuses to protect Jews is discrimination and that makes him a bigot. Would a white cop not be called a racist because he refused to guard an Embassy full of blacks for whatever reason?

Quote: You label his anti Israeli stance as an anti Jewish one, itself a common practise in the 'if you disagree with Israel slaughtering arabs then you are a racist'
Well nevermind the fact that the majority of Israel's enemies seem to make very anti-semetic comments. No not everyone that opposes Israel is a bigot but a large percentage of them are.

Quote: You ignore the fact he has seen +1,000,000 people in his families homeland be made homeless, with however many killed. You ignore the fact he will have seen his people oppressed for decades, and simply try to label his perfectly legitimate concerns over the oppression of his people as 'anti jewish'. A Jew with family or extended family in Israeli has seen Isrel attacked by just about every single Arab nation in the middle east, has seen the Israeli people forced to live in bunkers and be slaughtered by suicide bombers and missiles. I guess he is morally right to refuse to guard any Arab nations embassy? I'd say no but apparently you think so.


Quote: Again, you're trying to trivialise the slaughter and mass displacement of a people for no legitimate reason, as 'disagreeing with a certain group.' It's not real debating, it's tabloid stuff. You're discussing the oppression of his people, your talking about someone who has seen his people be raped and pillaged by Israel, and you call him a bigot for not wanting to protect Israel's embassy.

Israel has been raping and pillaging Lebanon? Wow I guess they should change their flag to a skull and cross bones and sail the high seas.
If by raping and pillaging you are refering to telling the people that they were going to bomb southern Lebanon, to withholding their full military power, limiting operations, and by fighting a war under a the watch of a clock then sure.

Quote: So let's say you've joined the US army in the hope of doing some good in the world. You are ordered to torture a group of teenage arabs that were just brought in in order to gain info, something that goes against all your morales.
Well you see in the US military that is not a lawful order. An order which by the UCMJ can be refused. Now how does this compare to protecting an Israeli embassy in the UK. Was this cop asked to rough people up and torture them in order to protect the embassy?

Quote: In my opinion a true American would refuse to do this, irrelevant of his commitments made upon joining the army, as his own morale code (assuming it is strong enough) should override that.
Moral code has nothing to do with this. Look at Abu Grabh. Those soldiers that committed the heinous acts were punished by the US government under the UCMJ. So this isn't a question of the morale code, it's a question of the UCMJ which does not allow this, regardless of orders from a superior officer.

Quote: If a corrupt president came in and tried to take his country into an illegal war based on lies, and a soldier thought this was the case, would a true American continue to serve him irrelevant of his commitments? Another situation that has been addressed. If the American refuses to serve as ordered by his superiors, then he/she will be tried under the UCMJ. If you were allowed to just pick and choose what war you wanted to fight that would make a military rather ineffective. You will have people that disagree with any war that is fought and allowing their "morale code" to dictate if they are part of it is insane. The fact is that the US Army consists of volunteers.

Quote: The same argument holds for deciding not to protect the slaughterer of your people. So again if this muslim cop sees an Israeli citizen being murdered on the streets of the UK he is justified by your reasoning in not assisting the Israeli because hey he slaughtered the cop's people right?
Once again your preaching anarchy where people do not have to follow a uniform set of rules. Do you think every Israeli took part or even supported the action in Lebanon? No they didn't. So the muslim cop is justified in not defending these people as well according to you based on the simple fact they are Israeli people. That is being a blind bigot.

Quote: He doesn't want to protect the embassy due to morale grounds Why are you switching from he didn't want to protect the embassy due to danger to himself and his family to his moral code?
Either way he is wrong in doing so no matter which angle you decide to take. He chose to the job of being a cop and then made the choice to sign up for embassy duty.

Quote: his believing Israel is the perpetrator of breaking various UN and Geneva conventions, lying to the U.N and breaking the NPT,and a list of other attrocities I could fill a page with
Has Lebanon not ignored the UN before? Why yes they have. Actually if they had even tried to disarm Hezbollah maybe they wouldn't have been bombed by Israel. Another fact.... the UK has spoken out against UN decisions. I guess his moral code can mean he no longer has to protect the British people due to their choice in not following the UN right? So anyone guarding a Iranian embassy is safe to refuse this because hey they've not listened to the UN. Iraq broke tons of UN sanctions under Saddam but you apparently believe a war isn't legal against them. So whats the difference with this muslim cop?

Quote: really don't know how else to debate this point if you genuinely believe the Israeli actions towards Lebanon recently are irrelevant to this. Quite shocking
Israeli actions towards Lebanon should be ignored during his duty. He swore an oath, he is supposed to be impartial while performing his duty. How that is not a problem with you I don't know.

Quote: You're a German in early 1930's whose joined the army because you've seen how unfairly your country is being treated and believe it the right thing to do
Well first if you had this belief you would have been listening to Hitler whom claimed it was the Jew's fault for your countries problems. Your asked to kill hundreds of Jews a day. I do not know German military law, lets say they had the same as the Americans. Well the UCMJ would say this is not a lawful order and it doesn't matter if your a private and Hitler himself ordered you to do it. You do not have to perform this duty.

Now this is parallel to guarding the Israeli embassy in the UK? :lol:
Here is a parrellel for you:
Your a Jewish UK cop (with family in Israel) guarding the Syrian embassy in the UK. You don't like the Syrians because well they have funded wars and slaughtered Israelis. So some terrorist group comes to blow up the Syrian embassy and you refuse to attempt to stop it because you don't like the Syrians. Are you justified by your inaction even though you first voluntered to be an impartial officer of the law and secondly voluntered to be on embassy duty?

Quote: It's such blind loyalty and "Patriotism" that leads to such situations. If people did what they believed was morally just rather than going with the flow, perhaps the world would be a better place.
If people weren't bigots the word would be a better place.

Quote: I'm again expecting you to try and trivialise this as 'OK so muslims should kill non muslims cause they think it's the right thing to do', and other laughable comparisons that compare not defending the slaughterer of your people to being a murderer yourself.
:roll:

Quote: First of all I hope it's clear my support of his stance has nothing to do with my support of his beliefs with regards to Israel, while they happen to coincide the issue at hand here is following orders regardless of morale implication
So a black man who is a cop in America whom suffered years of racism and discrimination is justified in not protecting whites because of what they had done to his race?
I have a strong feeling the reason you support this muslim cop is due to the fact you don't like Israel's actions.

Quote: Again, were a soldier to be asked to torture a group of civilians in the hope some info may be gleaned, would a 'true' morally just person do it?

Is protecting an embassy close to being asked to torture people?

Quote: For a doctor to refuse to aid someone would mean pain would be inflicted, the policeman was, let's be honest, in no way endangering anyone.
Really? So a cop that is assigned to building A that refuses to actually guard it is not endagering people by ignoring his job? Yes he is.

Quote: A replacement policeman was found immediately, and nothing was left unserved.
How long had he felt like this while he was "performing his duty"?
Did he take the job and then in 5 minutes get a replacement? Apparently he is justified by you in not protecting the Israeli embassy so do you believe he protected it while he was on duty?

Quote: Were he to come accross an Israeli being mugged in the street, I think we all agree he would have done something about it I do not know if he would or would not but it is certainly open to question. He refuses to guard an embassy based on them being Israeli. So why would an Israeli being mugged be any different? Any Israeli embassy is a target of terrorism for their enemies, he wouldn't protect the Israelis then why would he during a mugging?

Quote: He wasn't prepared to make that statement and I have huge respect in placing himself in the national firing line for what he believes to be right. I guess it takes a lot of be shown as a bigot in the national spotlight. The problem is I would call a Jew that refused to guard Lebanon's embassy a bigot for doing the exact same thing.

[emerald]

I presonally agree with bonobo, i think the way this story was reported was just to produce some headlines, most of the information was skewed on only really got to late after everyone seemed to have formulated an opinion of some sort about the issue. the police officer is labanese, he is a muslim, his family live in southern lebanon, and were under severe attack when israel were attacking lebanon. i doubt very much that his senior commanders in the police force took this decision lightly, and there must have been a real issue for concern for this to have gone through without him being asked to leave his job. and apart from the issues he has with not feeling it's safe for him to do so because of his family in lebanon and in the UK, and due to political grounds or whatever the reasons, this story should never have made the splash it did, his request and the decision by the police force should have been confidential not splashed all voer tabloid news to get people riling. had the issue not been about a muslim and the israeli embassy no one would have cared an ounce.

Quote: Easy, he is a muslim that refuses to guard the Israeli Embassy in the UK. Israel is seen by "his people" as a Jewish state. So a muslim that refuses to protect Jews is discrimination and that makes him a bigot. Would a white cop not be called a racist because he refused to guard an Embassy full of blacks for whatever reason?

i find the mixing with jews and israel and somehow if you dislike israel therefore you dislike jews not true. i dont agree with iraeli action, but that has nothing to do with judaism...i also dont agree with british action in iraq do i now dislike myself as well because i'm british? i dont agree with the actions of those that use islam as some excuse to kill, does that mean i dislike myself for being a muslim?
and as for the white guy refusing to guard an embassy full of black people, well personally if i was black i would probably feel safer if a white racist wasnt forced to guard me....

Quote: A Jew with family or extended family in Israeli has seen Isrel attacked by just about every single Arab nation in the middle east, has seen the Israeli people forced to live in bunkers and be slaughtered by suicide bombers and missiles. I guess he is morally right to refuse to guard any Arab nations embassy? I'd say no but apparently you think so.

i cant udnerstand why it's so very easy for you to see the israeli side as being people under attack and opressed etc etc......yet find it so difficult to understand that the palestinians are suffering just the same

[ToonArmyIsComing]

emerald wrote: i cant udnerstand why it's so very easy for you to see the israeli side as being people under attack and opressed etc etc......yet find it so difficult to understand that the palestinians are suffering just the same

That's because many people lack the quality called "empathy".

Having said that, however, I am increasingly uneasy about much of the Muslim population in the West because many are simply bigots.

[nrhy]

there is a difference between a synagogue which represents jews, and an israeli embassy which represents israelis. And why is everyone exploiting the article as a religious issue? He could be an arab who disagrees with israel's policies, and as someone earlier mentioned, doesn't mind guarding the embassy but is afraid that someone, will threaten his family because of his actions.

[ToonArmyIsComing]

nrhy wrote: there is a difference between a synagogue which represents jews, and an israeli embassy which represents israelis. And why is everyone exploiting the article as a religious issue? He could be an arab who disagrees with israel's policies, and as someone earlier mentioned, doesn't mind guarding the embassy but is afraid that someone, will threaten his family because of his actions.

I personally don't have a problem with this. I am more worried about the IMPLICATIONS of such decisions within the police force. What if a very religious Christian, an Orthodox Muslim, a BNP member, an Orthodox Jew, etc etc start using this precedent to pick and choose who they'd like to protect. Of course, so long as you are in the majority, it's all fine because you are not likely to be affected, but what if you are a minority? Then most likely what happens is that the idea of protecting people's rights really goes out the window.

[prometeus]

emerald wrote: I presonally agree with bonobo, i think the way this story was reported...

...i doubt very much that his senior commanders in the police force took this decision lightly, and there must have been a real issue for concern for this to have gone through...

I ama really amazed that hwat appears as reasonable people can actually simpatize and understand this kind of bigotted attitude (the policeman's)

It is precisely this kind of appeasement and biased attitude on the part of those who sympathize and the policeman, that perpetuated that climate of terrorism and hatred. "I think..." and "I doubt very much..." hardly amount to the slightest reasoning. Dereliction of duty for which an oath was given, on the other hand does not need to be reasoned with. It is plain wrong and it has to be dealt with. Did you or bonobo stop to think what would have happened if that policemen came across a bomber? Maybe he would have let him go because he sympathizes with his "roots"?

If that man is so concerned with his family in Lebanon, there is a very good solution to that: pack up and go there, protect them and if he dislikes Israel so much he could even take up arms against it by joining one of the multitude of low life terrorist groups. But he certainly has no business being a Brit in a policeman uniform.

[slitedeviance]

prometeus wrote: Did you or bonobo stop to think what would have happened if that policemen came across a bomber? Maybe he would have let him go because he sympathizes with his "roots"?

Based on that argument isn't it probably better that the policeman made his superiors aware of the issue rather than just taking the posting?

[prometeus]

NO

People like that, who uphold their oath only when it is convenient or when it fits their personal views, not the universal application as taken (the oath) would not make their "superior aware" on something like that.

[slitedeviance]

prometeus wrote: NO

People like that, who uphold their oath only when it is convenient or when it fits their personal views, not the universal application as taken (the oath) would not make their "superior aware" on something like that.

My point is, you raised a question about his capacity to fully carry out his duties in light of his feelings towards the situation in Lebanon / Israel...

Quote: what would have happened if that policemen came across a bomber? Maybe he would have let him go because he sympathizes with his "roots"?

If he had this doubt himself would you rather that he advised his superiors that he was not able to carry out his duties fully, or that he went ahead and was put in a position where his personal feelings could undermine the effectiveness of the police force at the Israeli embassy?