We owe Arabs nothing. Robert Kilroy-Silk

[Dhagax-Tuur]

Kilroy is an ignorant public figure. However I have never thought - having watched his daytime prog - that he would sink this low. This might have been a publicity seeking article that backfired badly, pretty badly. We all know how pathetic western celebrity are when they want get their names mentioned in the media.

 

Back to the point. few people seem to be missing the plot here. Ok, the man mentions the ills of the today's Arab world. True. But as, HornAfrique, mentioned, who is the machine behind these states. These puppet states are nurtured to degrade their people -Arab people- the state they are in today. No wonder he doesnt see what they are doing behind the scenes and can only see what the puppets do. Ask yourself what has caused thousands of muslim, Arab young men, to be up in arms and ready to take their own lives in all sorts of methods? They have lived in what Kilroy described in his article and decided to do someting about it, rather than end up in prison jail (that is what happens when you go about things in peaceful ways in most of Arab world and dictatorships).

 

To sum it up, the Arab world today is a wound, a very infected wound. The cure of wound lies in determining the cause of the wound and starting the fight there. The cause of the Arab world and most of the so-called 3rd world is America and its western allies.

 

That is my view.

 

P.S. Is Kilroy a Jew, by the way?

[Modesty]

Lander wrote:

My personal opinion is that the US is not the greatest threat to the Islamic world today, it is a distant 2nd to the pathetic arab dictatorships who are in place today. We should start of by criticising these desert bedouins before we look to the west.

Aboowe there are these brutal dictators in the Islamic world because the U.S. has put these puppet rulers there and indeed want them to be oppressive to the muslims. These dictators are fianced by the U.S., so that they may suppress true Islam in that part of the world, and instead replace it with brutal dictatorship. Also these brutal dictators are responsible for the tortures of their people, and for economic growth in their countries because the U.S. makes sure they're kept in a dependent state(just like welfare!).

 

Rudy wrote:

hey! u seen any good arab rulers lately! so why all the fuss! let this ppl get freed and be part of this world!

Aboowe I haven't heard of successful Arab leaders, but I wouldn't say they're bad. The only way these people will be freed is to establish a true Islamic government based on the laws of shariah.

 

-It's known that there are two ideologies in the world today, Islam and Democracy. The difference between Democracy and Islam is that Democracy is ever-changing man- made laws, while Islam is divine and unchanging. Islam is what the world needs to be freed, it promotes equality. Democracy however, doesn't promote equality...and I don't need to explain all one has to do is view our society.

 

P.S.---i need to sleep!

[Liqaye]

Modesty hit it on the head.

 

I actually saw an interview he gave on CNN, well i he is not saying anything new really is he, he is just preaching the bible of secularism and diin-la'an that he sees as the progress for arabs and the world in general.

 

Also the article he said these things in appeared LAST april, only the BBC being freaked out by all the attention it is getting from the hutton enquiry is doing its damndest to appear even handed.

[Thinkerman]

P.S. Is Kilroy a Jew, by the way?

 

FRENCH. CONNECTION. UNITED. KINGDOM. ME :confused: :confused: :confused:

 

man they are everwhere

[N.O.R.F]

To be hoest i dont see what the big fuss is about? Let the geezer say what he wants, if u dont like it, cool. But what do we think about whites/yahudes/british? we prob have the same stereotypes as he does. We are constantly stereotyping, hes done the same, and bang, big deal,,,,,,,,, :rolleyes: , dont give that cr*p about hes jew hes this hes that, his opinions about arabs are prob the same as yr co-worker u get along with,,,,,,,

[Valenteenah.]

^^ Yes dear, but your co-worker, or the guy down the street don't have the public's ear, do they? Kilroy showed an immense amount of mean-spirited ignorance. I would never have guessed that someone of his stature, a former MP no doubt, would show such a distinct lack of historical knowledge.

 

Cue: "Apart from oil - which was discovered, is produced and is paid for by the West - what do they contribute? Can you think of anything? Anything really useful?... No, nor can I...".

 

Maybe he can't, but I definitely can. I was sure even the most lowly-educated westerner would be aware of how much the Arab and Islamic civilisations contributed to the world in the fields of Science, astronomy, medicine, mathematics and agricultural & nautical technologies to name but a few. Amazing how a little fool like Kilroy would try to deny the Arabs their contribution to the world. "Apart from oil" indeed. What a ghastly individual.

 

I for one hope the BBC get rid of him permanently. Probably won't happen tho...Public figures say whatever the hell they want these days and then just offer a little blatantly insincere apology and everything is good as new.

[N.O.R.F]

Question was-what do they contribute? Key word here being 'do' not 'did' like most ppl think. So lets flip it, what do they contribute in todays world? not historically, thats an interesting question.

[Baashi]

^^very interesting question: what they do contribute?

 

How about they propogate Islamic curriculum/literature and they finance Islamic institutions, publishing powerhouses, construction of Mosques in the West. It might not be important to Kilroy and his sympathizers but the dissemination of Islamic literature is very important to 1 billion people on this planet.

 

Add that the "brain drain" where Arab intellectuals are contributing to the success and the progress West is enjoying. US compases are full of Arab prof.

[Valenteenah.]

LoL..'do' and not 'did'...ok got it. Sorry North...an oversight on my part.

 

Along with Baashi, I still do think they contribute quite a lot. Leaving aside their position as the hub of education in the Islamic world, I would also say they contribute immensely to the global economy in terms of business, banking, investments and western stock markets.

 

The Arab world provides a huge market for Western countries' exports. The UAE countries are now at the cutting edge of global business, banking and tourism with western multi-nationals in intense competition to get a piece of the pie.

 

If I am not mistaken, I recall reading something about one of those Saudi millionaires investing an incredible amount of money in the Dow Jones stock exchange post-9/11...when the American economy hit rock-bottom.

[N.O.R.F]

gr8 reply Baashi, an oversight on my part in not recognised worthy causes in relation deen. However, now that we have solved what they contribute, lets flip it again. WHat do they contribute 'Politically'. We all know about these west 'owned' regimes who are one minute building mosques and the next are too weak to even support the ummah. With all the money they have, why are they not using this to better advance their ppl, to help other struggling muslims, (i dont mean charity) but help poorer countries/communities be self dependent. But no, we have Saudization in the khaleej countries, those who have been will have noticed the vast difference between the rich and the poor (very evident), they are too busy convinced the west to use their deserts as air bases, Dubia is the new 'middle heaven' for westerners, the arab leaguemeeting constantly turn into he said she said slanging matches between Libya and the rest. So, apart from those good deeds Baashi and Bee mentioned there are also negatives which are not noticed or ignored. or maybe i just dont like arabs much myself.

[LANDER]

Modesty and Hornafrique,

Believe me I am well aware of the american support for these puppet governments, the americans are definetely the enemies of Islamic civilization. But overlooking our own decadence is the mistaken often made by neo Islamic revolutionaries. The Ibn Saud dynasty was in power before the discovery of oil and the arrival of westerners, they did not need american support to gain power or to sustain it in their early days and besides the oil not much else has changed today. They are still the same narrowminded wahabi imperial power they where decades ago with or whitout americans. Our deterioration as the islamic umah started long ago probably somewhere near the end of the 7th century. It has been mostly downhill since the time when Baghdad was the capital of modern science, litterature and arts. When intellectuals would meet in springing gardens cooled by jasmine scented breezes, where the dinstinction between caliph and phylosopher didn't exist since they could both describe the same person. Anyway, before I get anymore carried away the point is that,we are our own worst enemies. We have to start looking inwards and start making changes to one day realise the utopian dream of the great civilizations we once were. In our current state we can never hope to deal with our true enemies (the american and zionist), since when do the weak impose their will on the strong? If we are to make some real changes we have to start with the elimination of the cowards that are in partnership with the enemy, they are the ones who are facilitating our decadence. Just look at our brethren in Baghdad today, these people who descend from a rich cultur are reduced to luting and killing each other. Their faith might a been different if only Qatar, Kuwait, Jordan and Saudi regimes had the courage to say "no" to the americans. Where do we start you say? How about Hosni Mubarak, King Fahd, Musharaf and Prince Abdul all assassinated that would be a good start. I'm out, before I start indulging in homicidal fantacies

[Saxardiid]

whenever one talks about arabs why muslims jump and start defending indefenceable? arabs including somalis run away their homeland not because of the west but because of their rulers, trible wars, underdevelopmen, economic stagnation and political slavery. most of what kilroy said was absolutely right and he doesn't need to opologise to anyone. arabs don't tell truth to themselves and they don't like anyone else telling them that too. truth hurts anyway.

[Modesty]

sooyal wrote:

most of what kilroy said was absolutely right and he doesn't need to opologise to anyone

Most of what Kilroy said was out of hatred and racism towards Arabs, it wasn't very logical as he said 'all Arabs' not 'some Arabs'.

[QUANTUM LEAP]

The BBC has dramatically taken Robert Kilroy-Silk's daytime TV show off air while it investigates his anti-Arab diatribe in a Sunday newspaper column.

 

Kilroy-Silk: speculation his could be axed altogether

 

The Sunday Express has reacted furiously, accusing the BBC of "gagging free speech" and demanding the presenter be reinstated immediately, insisting there was nothing racist in Kilroy-Silk's column.

 

 

And there has already been speculation on the BBC's Radio 5 Live that the show could be axed altogether if it is found to breach a recent tightening of its rules about presenters writing newspaper columns. The corporation has told Kilroy-Silk his show will be pulled while it conducts an internal investigation into his comments in last weekend's Sunday Express, which have already been branded "deplorable" and "racist" by MPs and Muslim groups.

 

 

In it he said that Arab states "murdered more than 3,000 civilians on 11th September and then danced in the hot, dusty streets to celebrate". He added that "despotic, barbarous and corrupt Arab states" were populated by "suicide bombers", "limb amputators" and "women repressers".

"They should go down on their knees and thank God for the munificence of the United States," he said, adding that "few of them make any contribution to the welfare of the rest of the world".

Kilroy, the former-MP-turned-TV-presenter's daily discussion show, will disappear from the schedules from Monday and will be replaced by an extended half-hour of BBC Breakfast from 9am - 9.30am.

 

 

The BBC said in a statement today that it "strongly disassociates itself from the views expressed in an article by Robert Kilroy-Silk in the Sunday Express of January 4 2004".

"We stress that these comments do not reflect the views of the BBC," it said, adding that the corporation would "investigate this matter fully".

 

 

But the Sunday Express has reacted furiously to the BBC's decision. It accused the BBC of "grossly over-reacting" and called on the corporation to reinstate the presenter immediately.

"The article was not a racist article and it was a rewrite of a previous article that appeared in April without complaint. The Sunday Express rewrote it during the Christmas period, but there was not one complaint before," said a spokesman.

 

 

"It was legalled by lawyers and there is absolutely no case to answer. The Sunday Express believes that the BBC is gagging free speech and is absolutely appalled."

The spokesman added it believed Kilroy-Silk was the victim of a campaign by an Arab website that had urged its users to write in and complain to the "Express on Sunday".

Earlier today backbench Labour MP Lynne Jones demanded the BBC consider sacking Kilroy-Silk and put down an early day motion calling on other MPs to support her in showing their contempt for his column.

 

 

Trevor Phillips, the chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality, has already branded the article "indisputably ****** " and said the CRE would be referring it to the police to see if there was a case for a prosecution on grounds of incitement to racial hatred.

The Muslim Council of Britain described Kilroy-Silk's piece as a "gratuitous anti-Arab rant".

Iqbal Sacranie, the general secretary of the Muslim Council of Britain, said action should be taken over the "bigoted and ill-informed ideas" in the piece, which was "ignorant, extremely derogatory and indisputably racist".

 

 

He told Radio 5 Live this afternoon that he was delighted with the decision taken by the BBC, saying it "sent a very powerful message" to people in a position of responsibility that they could not express "racist, inflammatory views". He agreed in every community there were individual who commit criminal acts, but said it was wrong to generalise about "Arabs".

 

 

Mr Sacranie was asked what he thought of Abu Hamza, the inflammatory Muslim cleric who operated out of a Finsbury Park mosque until it was closed down last year.

"There are loonies around and of course if they make [racist] comments they should be condemned. But they [Hamza] are at the margins; Kilroy-Silk is part of the mainstream."

The Sunday Express said today that the Council had been offered and had accepted a right to reply in this weekend's paper.

 

 

Privately BBC bosses are furious that they have once again been caught in the firing line because of a newspaper article. Last month it was forced to introduce stricter freelance guidelines for journalists and presenters, preventing them from writing about current affairs or contentious issues in newspapers. This move followed the Hutton inquiry, sparked by Andrew Gilligan's controversial Today programme report on Iraq, a piece that was given "rocket boosters" by a subsequent Mail on Sunday column accusing Alastair Campbell of "sexing" up the intelligence dossier on Iraq to justify war.

 

 

Kilroy-Silk's piece originally appeared during the war and it is believed he did not know it was going to be regurgitated last week. It first appeared on April 6 last year, with a different headline and slightly different editing. This is not the first time Kilroy-Silk has been accused of expressing racist views in his newspaper column. In 1992 he sparked fury with his comments about the Irish in the pages of the Daily Express. He described EC Commissioner Ray MacSharry as a "redundant second-rate politician from a country peopled by peasants, priests and pixies". After a complaint from the Irish Ambassador to the UK, he apologised. The then editor Sir Nicholas Lloyd also apologised.

[Saxardiid]

Originally posted by Modesty:

of what Kilroy said was out of hatred and racism towards Arabs, it wasn't very logical as he said 'all Arabs' not 'some Arabs'.

this is some of his gereralisation which agree

the Arab countries are not exactly shining examples of civilisation,are they?

we all make generalisations such as amaricans hate muslims, they -galo put our dictators on us, they choose our leaders for us and so forth. so why is he different?