Originally posted by VargWell, I appreciate you didn't suspect this but if you read previous posts you'll find some people did.
What!?
It didn't even cross my mind that he was afraid of the Israelis in the embassy.
I heard about this on the radio, perhaps something lead me to believe he was afraid of reprisals from the islamic community.
I was just expressing surprise that you still feel there is something of concern in this story when it seems that recent quotes suggest he did nothing unsavoury at all.
Originally posted by WheelyIt seems it is a bit of a non-story after all.
Well, I appreciate you didn't suspect this but if you read previous posts you'll find some people did.
I was just expressing surprise that you still feel there is something of concern in this story when it seems that recent quotes suggest he did nothing unsavoury at all.
However, whilst I agree with Supt. Babu that excusing officers of assignments because of moral beliefs is unacceptable, I wouldn't blame PC Basha if he wanted to change jobs - people change jobs all the time because they are unhappy about various things.
1 edit
Originally posted by Varg"Which Nazi German Embassy is this you are talking about?"
I wasn't serious.
Was your ridiculous leap of logic serious?
It wasn't me who said the nazis didn't have embassies, it was you who said that I said it.
I don't believe he should be fired full stop from the police force but demoted to another section.
I don't know why you think my posts are targeted at you, it was clearly a response to your comment about nazis.
What years were the Nazi party in power in Germany? 1933-1945. Now, either you don't understand the nature of hypotheticals or you don't believe that Germany had an embassy in London pre-war. I apologise for being unable to decipher your attempts at debate.
You confirmed that you believed that Nazi Germany didn't have embassies in London in the 1930s when I asked you, when you replied..."Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. "
And again, you implied that you believed that there were no German embassies in London in the 30s when you "played" along with my hypothetical..."
Okay, to follow your hypothetical situation.
In the 1930's Nazi Germany had embassies. "
You only changed your tune once I provided the address of the German embassy in London in the 30s.
The reason why I thought you were purely targetting me, as opposed to my debate was due to this comment "And I was laughing because bringing the nazis into a debate is usually the last resort of those losing an argument but in your case it's often the first!". How exactly was I supposed to take that?
I brought the hypothetical into the debate as it is very difficult to make judgement on current affairs without referring to historical precedent. Some people prefer to belief what rumour-mongers and one-sided men like Rupert Murdoch tells them through The Sun. I prefer to try to create a scenario in which I can more easily understand the situation.
I could have asked if the people calling for him to be fired would have felt the same if it was an Israeli person refusing to protect Hamas or Hezbollah (remember varg, this is a hypothetical) during the recent war.
D
1 edit
Would you have the same opinion if a jew feared for his safety after being assigned to protect Nazi Germany's embassy? "Which Nazi German Embassy is this you are talking about?" And by the way, are you saying that Germany had no embassies in the 1930s?
I don't see how your second statement follows from my reply. Okay my question rather facetiously ignored the hypothetical "1930s" scenario but that's because I was laughing at your use of the nazi card so early.
You confirmed that you believed that Nazi Germany didn't have embassies in London in the 1930s when I asked you, when you replied..."Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. "
Sarcasm, because I couldn't see how you made that leap of logic.
And again, you implied that you believed that there were no German embassies in London in the 30s when you "played" along with my hypothetical..."
Okay, to follow your hypothetical situation.
In the 1930's Nazi Germany had embassies. "
I didn't imply anything there. If you read just those two sentences it almost seems like I am saying the 1930s embassies were hypothetical, but if you read on it's very clear.
The reason why I thought you were purely targetting me, as opposed to my debate was due to this comment "And I was laughing because bringing the nazis into a debate is usually the last resort of those losing an argument but in your case it's often the first!". How exactly was I supposed to take that?
It is a well known internet culture fact that people tend to bring up the nazis to strengthen your argument.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
I just notice that this is a tactic that you often use.
Doesn't mean I'm attacking you.
I could have asked if the people calling for him to be fired would have felt the same if it was an Israeli person refusing to protect Hamas or Hezbollah (remember varg, this is a hypothetical) during the recent war.
This would have been a better analogy.
Originally posted by blade68Do you believe that when he joined the police force he should have thought "There is a possibility that the US might invade some middle east countries and Islamic terrorist attacks might grow alarmingly and that Israel might attack Lebanon at the same time as I am supposed to be guarding the Israeli embassy and photographs of me doing that might be broadcast around the world and some nutter might think that is a good reason to attack my wife so maybe I shouldn't be a policeman after all".
Shouldn't be in the job then... he knew what it would entail.
What next? A soldier saying he won't go to war 'cos he's scared for his safety?
This PC sensibly asked to be transferred but there has been no suggestion that if his request was denied he would not have carried out his duties at the Israeli embassy with professionalism. I bet this story sold a few more copies of the Sun though.
Originally posted by WheelyI wouldn't know, I don't read The Sun.
Do you believe that when he joined the police force he should have thought "There is a possibility that the US might invade some middle east countries and Islamic terrorist attacks might grow alarmingly and that Israel might attack Lebanon at the same time as I am supposed to be guarding the Israeli embassy and photographs of me doing that might be broadcast ...[text shortened]... eli embassy with professionalism. I bet this story sold a few more copies of the Sun though.
2 edits
Originally posted by Vargvarg: It is a well known internet culture fact that people tend to bring up the nazis to strengthen your argument.
I could have asked if the people calling for him to be fired would have felt the same if it was an Israeli person refusing to protect Hamas or Hezbollah (remember varg, this is a hypothetical) during the recent war.
This would have been a better analogy.[/b]
That's not what Godwin's Law says. Read your link. "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
Rag: "I could have asked if the people calling for him to be fired would have felt the same if it was an Israeli person refusing to protect Hamas or Hezbollah (remember varg, this is a hypothetical) during the recent war."
varg: This would have been a better analogy.
While the analogy would have been more immediately relevant, I wonder if it would have been a better one. Opinions are mixed on who is right and wrong in the present conflict in the Middle East. The above analogy would have been open to interpretation, depending on where sympathies lay.
The Nazi analogy fits, IMO, because in each case the person "refusing" to do the protecting has been identified as an enemy of the person being protected.
Muslim protecting Israeli government...
Sharon: "Even today I am willing to volunteer to do the dirty work for Israel, to kill as many Arabs as necessary, to deport them, to expel and burn them"
Jew protecting Palestinian leadership, Hamas...
Hamas communique: ""The Jews: killed the prophets…slaughtered the innocent…imprisoned our pious…NO PEACE WITH THE MURDERERS.""
Jew protecting Nazi Germany government...
Adolf Hitler, 1933: "The Catholic Church considered the Jews pestilent for fifteen hundred years, put them in ghettos, etc, because it recognized the Jews for what they were. … I recognize the representatives of this race as pestilent for the state and for the church and perhaps I am thereby doing Christianity a great service by pushing them out of schools and public functions"
The above rhetoric should highlight the parallel I was trying to draw.
Anyway, that line of discussion is irrelevant now due to the information which wheely has since added.
D
Originally posted by RagnorakYes, that is the exact wording of Godwin's Law.
varg: [b]It is a well known internet culture fact that people tend to bring up the nazis to strengthen your argument.
That's not what Godwin's Law says. Read your link. "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
[/b]
But read the rest of the link for expansion:
"Godwin argues in his book, Cyber Rights: Defending Free Speech in the Digital Age, that hyperbolic overuse of the Hitler/Nazi comparison should be avoided, as it robs the valid comparisons of their impact."
"There is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically "lost" whatever debate was in progress. This principle is itself frequently referred to as Godwin's Law. Thus Godwin's Law serves also to impose an upper bound on thread length in general."
...etc.
Originally posted by VargI took Godwin's Law to be a bit of a joke.
whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically "lost" whatever debate was in progress.
Are you saying that we shouldn't refer to historical events in order to learn how we should and shouldn't behave now and into the future?
Given my post above, do you think the analogy was a poor one, and that it didn't help people see Omar's possible perspective more clearly?
The people pushing for him to be sacked can't get beyond the absurdity of my hypothetical, unable to see that they are calling for somebody to be sacked in a completely parallel modern day situation, as the quoted rhetoric above shows.
D
Originally posted by WheelyActually yes, he knew there had been long term animosities [and even war] between his [?] and other countries.
Do you believe that when he joined the police force he should have thought "There is a possibility that the US might invade some middle east countries and Islamic terrorist attacks might grow alarmingly and that Israel might attack Lebanon at the same time as I am supposed to be guarding the Israeli embassy ....
Maybe he should have forseen a problem when he applied and joined the Diplomatic Protection Group though - for which he is no doubt paid a stupid amount of extra wages. I sincerely hope he is taken off the job at least.
Bleedin' malingerer!!!!
Originally posted by Dr StrangeloveIt seems to me that the additional information Wheely has pointed to demonstrates that the policeman himself may well regard it to be irrelevant which embassy he is protecting, in terms of his own moral viewpoint.
The whole point is, it should be irrelevant which embassy [or person] he is protecting.
But it would be foolish to assume that everyone is sufficiently rational and principled to regard it as irrelevant. He's perfectly entitled to take into account that there are nutters out there who take a different view.
I mean, just because I regard it as stupid to weave in and out of lanes while driving, doesn't mean I can ignore the possibility that the cars around me might weave in and out of lanes. I'd be damned stupid to drive as if everyone is going to behave the way I'd like them to. So I drive defensively, on the look out for the twits that weave in and out of lanes.
He's entitled to look out for the twits who would be outraged by a Muslim policeman guarding an Israeli embassy.
Originally posted by orfeoThe nutters in question wouldn't really be bothered what duties he was carrying out - so he will have to be given a deskjob - or the big elbow. It's the only way he will be safe isn't it?
It seems to me that the additional information Wheely has pointed to demonstrates that the policeman himself may well regard it to be irrelevant which embassy he is protecting, in terms of his own moral viewpoint.
But it would be foolish to assume that [b]everyone is sufficiently rational and principled to regard it as irrelevant. He's perfectly entitl ...[text shortened]... out for the twits who would be outraged by a Muslim policeman guarding an Israeli embassy.[/b]
We wouldn't want the poor chap endangering himself would we? 😉