Muslims could get own police

Pages: 1 … 4 5 6

Index »
Community »
Debate and Serious Talk »
Muslims could get own police

2009-07-26 04:42:29

#126

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6442|what

lowing wrote:
AussieReaper wrote:
lowing wrote:

VISITERS ya mean?
You've never heard of businessmen staying, making a family in a new country?

Look out your window.
Of so ya MEAN HE FUCKING LIVES THERE THEN?? and you are saying that the foreign nation should have a squad of white cops on the payroll to handle white crimes BECAUSE they understand their WHITENESS??? Yeah right. Aussie you are more fulla shit then you have even been on this forum.

If I posted that a white person in a foreign country should have whites only cops investigating their crimes you would hit the fucking roof and you know it.

read one post up and try answering that question...

2009-07-26 04:43:25

#127

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6941|USA

AussieReaper wrote:
lowing wrote:
Well, is anyone going to answer my question if Aussie or Hurricane refuse to?

Can I get away with such bullshit requests that a white officer handle my investigation, because he understands what it means to be white? Can I really get away saying something like that with out being ripped apart in this forum?

I know Aussie's and Hurricanes answer and it would be no I couldn't, ya know how I know it? They either refuse to answer it, or redirect it.
We have answered it.

You know what happens when a foreign person without a permanent residence is accused of murder, rape, etc?

They are given consular assistance.

You know, so that they have a representative who is better able to discuss legalese with them and relate exactly what is happening.

I suppose you feel that if an American is accused of breaking the law in France, you would want them denied consular assistance because the officers are white, so why does the American need an American to discuss the charges?

NOT based on religion Aussie. they find someone who can interpret and that is about it, and that is all that should be expected. They do not provide someone who is "ONE OF THEM" to conduct the investigation.

Last edited by lowing (2009-07-26 04:45:52)

2009-07-26 04:48:25

#128

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6442|what

lowing wrote:
NOT based on religion Aussie. they find someone who can interpret and that is about it, and that is all that should be esxpected.

If you believe that you should look into what an embassy actually does in terms of protecting it's overseas visitors.

You'll often find that cases are given special treatment and the foreign diplomats get involved, and pressure another country into extradition, dropping the charges, trial hearings delayed, etc.

And it might not be based on religion, but it's the same reasoning as to the Sikh and Muslim officers. It's far easier to relay important legalese with someone who understands you and is willing to cooperate.

edit (to your edit):

Yes, they do find one of them for legal representation. And these Sikh officers are not just investigating the accused, they are also patrolling the neighbourhoods and interacting with the community as all good officers do.

Last edited by AussieReaper (2009-07-26 04:50:53)

2009-07-26 04:52:03

#129

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6941|USA

AussieReaper wrote:
lowing wrote:
NOT based on religion Aussie. they find someone who can interpret and that is about it, and that is all that should be esxpected.
If you believe that you should look into what an embassy actually does in terms of protecting it's overseas visitors.

You'll often find that cases are given special treatment and the foreign diplomats get involved, and pressure another country into extradition, dropping the charges, trial hearings delayed, etc.

And it might not be based on religion, but it's the same reasoning as to the Sikh and Muslim officers. It's far easier to relay important legalese with someone who understands you and is willing to cooperate.

Aussie, not sure how many times I gotta say it, we are not talking about visiting foriegners to another country in need of a embassy, the fact that you stretch it so far shoulsd tell you something, YOU ARE WRONG. These are citizens and JUST LIKE YOU ADMIT, no one else gets special treatment based on their religion.

2009-07-26 04:56:01

#130

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6442|what

lowing wrote:
Aussie, not sure how many times I gotta say it, we are not talking about visiting foriegners to another country in need of a embassy, the fact that you stretch it so far shoulsd tell you something, YOU ARE WRONG. These are citizens and JUST LIKE YOU ADMIT, no one else gets special treatment based on their religion.

Sikhs get the same treatment the Muslims shall. Is that enough for you to admit your last sentence is wrong?

2009-07-26 04:58:28

#131

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6941|USA

AussieReaper wrote:
lowing wrote:
Aussie, not sure how many times I gotta say it, we are not talking about visiting foriegners to another country in need of a embassy, the fact that you stretch it so far shoulsd tell you something, YOU ARE WRONG. These are citizens and JUST LIKE YOU ADMIT, no one else gets special treatment based on their religion.
Sikhs get the same treatment the Muslims shall. Is that enough for you to admit your last sentence is wrong?

Nope, for to say that, means that BOTH get different treatment/considersation than everyone else based on fucking religion..

2009-07-26 05:03:32

#132

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6442|what

lowing wrote:
AussieReaper wrote:
lowing wrote:
Aussie, not sure how many times I gotta say it, we are not talking about visiting foriegners to another country in need of a embassy, the fact that you stretch it so far shoulsd tell you something, YOU ARE WRONG. These are citizens and JUST LIKE YOU ADMIT, no one else gets special treatment based on their religion.
Sikhs get the same treatment the Muslims shall. Is that enough for you to admit your last sentence is wrong?
Nope, for to say that, means that BOTH get different treatment/considersation than everyone else based on fucking religion..

Maybe your problem with this is the "special treatment" and "consideration". It's been pointed out already that the laws do not, will not and shall not change. So the treatment they are getting isn't special by any stretch of the imagination. All they are getting, is someone who can better interact with them. Which is why I don't have a problem with the practice and am surprised that you do.

2009-07-26 05:03:49

#133

Zefar: Member; +116|6939|Sweden

All I see this article is about is Muslims trying to slowly make another country into their country.

I don't really see why they need to have a Sikh to check the case when it's easily done by another police officer.

It also said something about honor killing in the first post. If they think they need a SPECIAL officer to look on the honor killing they are wrong. It's a murder, plain and simple. So why do they need a Sikh to check it for them?

I really hope this would not mean like, less punishment time for honor killing because it ruined his honor but they take no feeling of the victim who was most likely raped and then killed by her family.

2009-07-26 05:07:53

#134

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6941|USA

AussieReaper wrote:
lowing wrote:
AussieReaper wrote:

Sikhs get the same treatment the Muslims shall. Is that enough for you to admit your last sentence is wrong?
Nope, for to say that, means that BOTH get different treatment/considersation than everyone else based on fucking religion..
Maybe your problem with this is the "special treatment" and "consideration". It's been pointed out already that the laws do not, will not and shall not change. So the treatment they are getting isn't special by any stretch of the imagination. All they are getting, is someone who can better interact with them. Which is why I don't have a problem with the practice and am surprised that you do.

No, you are now diluting it. this first started as needing someone "special" to invesigate honor killings and matters of religious bullshit. You are now trying ( and I suppose have been for awhile since backed into a corner with it) to pass it off as just needing someone to talk to. You are full of shit, the idea that you need special cops to deal with special religions in order to investigate simple fuckin murder ( for whatever motive) is special treatment and consideration.

2009-07-26 05:13:39

#135

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6442|what

lowing wrote:
AussieReaper wrote:
lowing wrote:

Nope, for to say that, means that BOTH get different treatment/considersation than everyone else based on fucking religion..
Maybe your problem with this is the "special treatment" and "consideration". It's been pointed out already that the laws do not, will not and shall not change. So the treatment they are getting isn't special by any stretch of the imagination. All they are getting, is someone who can better interact with them. Which is why I don't have a problem with the practice and am surprised that you do.
No, you are now diluting it. this first started as needing someone "special" to invesigate honor killings and matters of religious bullshit. You are now trying ( and I suppose have been for awhile since backed into a corner with it) to pass it off as just needing someone to talk to. You are full of shit, the idea that you need special cops to deal with special religions in order to investigate simple fuckin murder ( for whatever motive) is special treatment and consideration.

Take the honour killings for Muslims out of the equation, since you're still so fixed on the notion that omg it's murder.

Why then are there Sikh officers...?

2009-07-26 05:38:04

#136

PureFodder: Member; +225|6575

lowing wrote:
Well, is anyone going to answer my question if Aussie or Hurricane refuse to?

Can I get away with such bullshit requests that a white officer handle my investigation, because he understands what it means to be white? Can I really get away saying something like that with out being ripped apart in this forum?

Religion =/= race.

2009-07-26 06:19:43

#137

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6941|USA

AussieReaper wrote:
lowing wrote:
AussieReaper wrote:
Maybe your problem with this is the "special treatment" and "consideration". It's been pointed out already that the laws do not, will not and shall not change. So the treatment they are getting isn't special by any stretch of the imagination. All they are getting, is someone who can better interact with them. Which is why I don't have a problem with the practice and am surprised that you do.
No, you are now diluting it. this first started as needing someone "special" to investigate honor killings and matters of religious bullshit. You are now trying ( and I suppose have been for awhile since backed into a corner with it) to pass it off as just needing someone to talk to. You are full of shit, the idea that you need special cops to deal with special religions in order to investigate simple fuckin murder ( for whatever motive) is special treatment and consideration.
Take the honour killings for Muslims out of the equation, since you're still so fixed on the notion that omg it's murder.

Why then are there Sikh officers...?

Sorry, Aussie, I will not allow you to take honor killings out of the equation just because it is inconvenient for you to justify. Honor killing is part of the equation as per the OP. and yes "OMG", it is still murder, NOT deserving of special religion cops.

Why are their sikh cops, maybe they are cops that HAPPEN to be Sikh, as far as requesting them to invesigate based on religious reasons, it is still bullshit.

Last edited by lowing (2009-07-26 06:30:57)

2009-07-26 06:27:53

#138

ghettoperson: Member; +1,943|6939

Reading the past two pages or so, I think lowing is starting to crack. I'm imagining you frothing at the mouth whilst posting.

2009-07-26 06:30:23

#139

FatherTed: xD; +3,936|6790|so randum

lowing wrote:
AussieReaper wrote:
lowing wrote:

No, you are now diluting it. this first started as needing someone "special" to investigate honor killings and matters of religious bullshit. You are now trying ( and I suppose have been for awhile since backed into a corner with it) to pass it off as just needing someone to talk to. You are full of shit, the idea that you need special cops to deal with special religions in order to investigate simple fuckin murder ( for whatever motive) is special treatment and consideration.
Take the honour killings for Muslims out of the equation, since you're still so fixed on the notion that omg it's murder.

Why then are there Sikh officers...?
Sorry, Aussie, I will not allow you to take honor killings out of the equation just because it is inconvenient for you to justify. Honor killing is part of the equation as per the OP. and yes "OMG", it is still murder, NOT deserving of special religion cops.

If found guilty, they'll still be charged with murder.

Think of it like this, if you were in a bar somewhere away from your normal drinking spot, you'd feel more comfortable if there was a few friendly faces around you.

Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella

2009-07-26 06:32:10

#140

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6941|USA

ghettoperson wrote:
Reading the past two pages or so, I think lowing is starting to crack. I'm imagining you frothing at the mouth whilst posting.

you wish, don't let your imagination run away with you.

2009-07-26 06:34:12

#141

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6941|USA

FatherTed wrote:
lowing wrote:
AussieReaper wrote:
Take the honour killings for Muslims out of the equation, since you're still so fixed on the notion that omg it's murder.

Why then are there Sikh officers...?
Sorry, Aussie, I will not allow you to take honor killings out of the equation just because it is inconvenient for you to justify. Honor killing is part of the equation as per the OP. and yes "OMG", it is still murder, NOT deserving of special religion cops.
If found guilty, they'll still be charged with murder.

Think of it like this, if you were in a bar somewhere away from your normal drinking spot, you'd feel more comfortable if there was a few friendly faces around you.

but I am in my normal drinking spot, I am not visiting another bar, I am in my bar, and I should not be allowed DIFFERENT considerations, based on my religion when paying my bar tab (dealing with the criminal justice system).

Last edited by lowing (2009-07-26 06:35:35)

2009-07-26 06:49:40

#142

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6442|what

What considerations would they be, lowing?

Because all that it means is face to face involvement with someone the victim of crime can feel comfortable with.

2009-07-26 06:50:51

#143

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6695|North Carolina

Mekstizzle wrote:
I doubt the people request for it. More like the police set it up themselves. Like I said, when it comes to stuff like this, most of the time it's the politicians and other government types who think they know how minorities think and so do this and that in the name of multiculturalism and being politically correct

Personally, I think Mek might be on to something here.

2009-07-26 06:55:31

#144

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6941|USA

AussieReaper wrote:
What considerations would they be, lowing?

Because all that it means is face to face involvement with someone the victim of crime can feel comfortable with.

you are not allowed to ask anything, until you answer yes or no, if it is right or wrong for me to suggest that white people be allowed their own white investigations in white crimes. because it would make me more comfortable.

Also IF their are no considerations, and nothing special associated with the request, then there is no need to make such a request in the first place.

Also you and have a conversation already started a few posts up, you need to stick to it.

Last edited by lowing (2009-07-26 11:12:38)

Pages: 1 … 4 5 6

Index »
Community »
Debate and Serious Talk »
Muslims could get own police

Board footer

Jump to

BF2S Forums Muslims could get own police

lowing wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

lowing wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

lowing wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

lowing wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

lowing wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

lowing wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Mekstizzle wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Board footer