http://ayaanhirsiali.web-log.nl/log/5732993
3 May 2006
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Radical Muslims not welcome in Dutch military</b>
The Dutch defence ministry is planning to shed personnel holding radical Islamic ideas. Dismissal proceedings are under way against a soldier for propagating extremist Islamic beliefs.
The military intelligence service has identified a further ten Muslim military staff, against whom similar action may be taken. The service says the loss of sensitive information and weapons or other material from within the military must be prevented.
Source: Radio Netherlands<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The following is about p3 of the news item 'Muslim found unsafe to guard British PM' posted by Naresh:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->On Tuesday, an understandably close-mouthed Scotland Yard refused to confirm or deny the particulars of Farooq's case. But a spokeswoman said: "The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) has been notified of an employment tribunal claim by an MPS Pc (police constable) alleging discrimination on the grounds of race and religious belief." <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Ethnicity is irrelevant here, because muslims come from all kinds of backgrounds.
But what is wrong in having reservations about a religious belief? Islam is an ideology. And so too is nazism. If they had banned nazis from serving in their task force, no one would have protested. Dangerous ideologies deserve to be treated with grave suspicion.
Islam specifically teaches murdering kafirs, waging jihad (terrorism) and creating disloyalty amongst the Faithful living in Dar-ul-Harb countries. What is wrong with identifying it for what it is? Why pretend that the religion does not advocate these things? (Guess the same reasons used by the PC crowd to remain silent about or defend christianity and communism are what kicks in when they are defending islam.) Individual muslims may choose to act as per their conscience, but their religion certainly has set instructions on matters of terrorism and murder. To pretend otherwise is to invite trouble. Therefore, to take safety precautions by releasing this Farooq from his new position is only understandable.
I'd argue all islamics should be released from offices concerning national security (of non-islamic countries), until they have affirmed that the defense of the people and nation they are serving comes first before their ideology. Then they should be monitored or take psych evaluations - and if they pass, can be fully accepted. This is obviously too time-consuming and a waste of effort and resources, making it easier to avoid placing them in such critical positions in the first place.
3 May 2006
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Radical Muslims not welcome in Dutch military</b>
The Dutch defence ministry is planning to shed personnel holding radical Islamic ideas. Dismissal proceedings are under way against a soldier for propagating extremist Islamic beliefs.
The military intelligence service has identified a further ten Muslim military staff, against whom similar action may be taken. The service says the loss of sensitive information and weapons or other material from within the military must be prevented.
Source: Radio Netherlands<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The following is about p3 of the news item 'Muslim found unsafe to guard British PM' posted by Naresh:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->On Tuesday, an understandably close-mouthed Scotland Yard refused to confirm or deny the particulars of Farooq's case. But a spokeswoman said: "The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) has been notified of an employment tribunal claim by an MPS Pc (police constable) alleging discrimination on the grounds of race and religious belief." <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Ethnicity is irrelevant here, because muslims come from all kinds of backgrounds.
But what is wrong in having reservations about a religious belief? Islam is an ideology. And so too is nazism. If they had banned nazis from serving in their task force, no one would have protested. Dangerous ideologies deserve to be treated with grave suspicion.
Islam specifically teaches murdering kafirs, waging jihad (terrorism) and creating disloyalty amongst the Faithful living in Dar-ul-Harb countries. What is wrong with identifying it for what it is? Why pretend that the religion does not advocate these things? (Guess the same reasons used by the PC crowd to remain silent about or defend christianity and communism are what kicks in when they are defending islam.) Individual muslims may choose to act as per their conscience, but their religion certainly has set instructions on matters of terrorism and murder. To pretend otherwise is to invite trouble. Therefore, to take safety precautions by releasing this Farooq from his new position is only understandable.
I'd argue all islamics should be released from offices concerning national security (of non-islamic countries), until they have affirmed that the defense of the people and nation they are serving comes first before their ideology. Then they should be monitored or take psych evaluations - and if they pass, can be fully accepted. This is obviously too time-consuming and a waste of effort and resources, making it easier to avoid placing them in such critical positions in the first place.