I have two questions.
First, who leaked this story to the press, and what effect did they hope to produce?
Second, why are news sources concentrating on the fact that the officer was a Muslim?
It seems to me that the important feature of this officer’s identity was not that he was a Muslim... He was excused from guarding the Israeli embassy during the Israeli invasion of Lebanon because his wife is Lebanese.
(...) Someone within the police, presumably occupying a senior position, is an anti-Muslim racist. This person is presumably riding on a significant amount of support from police officers who are either stupid dupes or fellow anti-Muslim racists.
I understand why the Sun put it on its front page. The paper wanted to show people that you cannot trust Muslims. Even when they join the police force they are not really like us and cannot be trusted. But why did the BBC make it the lead story on the morning news and the subject of the main interview on the Today programme?
It is now clear that PC Basha was not unhappy about being on duty at the embassy because of his religion or because of his disagreement with Israeli policy. He was unhappy about it because he feared for the safety of his wife's family in the Lebanon if he was photographed there.
PC Basha - in his late twenties and with a neatly-trimmed beard......
See also Anarcho Akbar







Yes that is the question, would this issue have reached the front pages if it had not concerned a Jewish Embassy and a Muslim police officer.
I'm sure that similar situations have occurred before, but no news on that.
Posted by: ainelivia | 08 October 2006 at 07:16 AM
t isn't a 'Jewish Embassy - no such things exist - it is an Israeli Embassy.
The officer had relatives in Lebanon under attack from Israel at the time -
- hence, even an uninformed pompous tabloid windbag like you would be able to see a security risk, if not, then at least the uncomfortable situation the officer was in
ie what if Israel murdered his Lebanese relatives?
Posted by: joe90 | 09 October 2006 at 01:10 AM
"The officer had relatives in Lebanon under attack from Israel at the time -
- hence, even an uninformed pompous tabloid windbag like you would be able to see a security risk, if not, then at least the uncomfortable situation the officer was in
ie what if Israel murdered his Lebanese relatives?"
"hence, even an uninformed pompous tabloid windbag like you would be able to see a"
Sorry, you are the uninformed one, never read a tab in my life. wouldn't waste hard earned money. And as for you picking up on errors, who woke up and made you God.
So Joe, as long as you attack me, you will earn the compliments of those you so seek to defend. That makes both you and them bullies. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that your mutual collusion, seems that you have "need" of enemies, so you manufacture them. Can't do without your daily fix, of having a go.
Honey, there's an awful lot of wind in your bag, and I'm sure that you have a long way to go before you run out of steam; unless you get wise to the "seduction of your emotions" by those who seek to use your anger for their purposes.
Posted by: ainelivia | 09 October 2006 at 02:13 AM
Joe, go back to writing on lavatory walls. Why would the Israelis murder his relatives in return for his protecting their embassy? If he was speaking earnestly (and I doubt it), then the danger came from his wife's countrymen and his co-religionists.
Posted by: Fred S. | 09 October 2006 at 12:34 PM
Well,
they'd murder his relatives because they're Lebanese living in Lebanon, and the Israelis illegally attacked Lebanon (with UK help) for a month while the policeman was on duty at the Israeli Embassy -
- in fact, that's the whole point of the story or did't you bother to read the story itself ?
Posted by: joe90 | 09 October 2006 at 09:20 PM