We owe Arabs nothing. Robert Kilroy-Silk

[sayfulaah-almasluul]

i think what kilroy said is partialy right!!!!look one should not twist the words,i mean come on we know that islam had contributed alot to modern civilazition,probably more the western did.but was that work of arab.i do not agree anyone who describes that huge contibution as arab work,becuuase simply it wasn't.it was muslim work,from africa to Turkey, iran and Andulisa alike.now think any thin that modern arab states contributed to our contemporary development of tecnology in any field?

i am not say that mr kilroy was right to make these racial remark about arabs,

the truth is arab states depend western for everything,from sandal to most expensive technology.and i am saying arabs becuase some none-arab muslim states develope indeginous tech, for example Iran will luanch it indegenous satalitte in next year and pakistan,Turkey,indenosia and malaysia made some progress.

i remeber reading a book written by an arab sheikh (forget his name)who said that egypty and japan started mordenisation and development at same time but while Japan is the most respect counry in world for it's huge contribution hi-tech field Egypty can even make it own indegenous engine. what i shame!!!!!

the fact is current arab ruler are dictators and do not want to see their people to open thier eyes.

one more thing:are arabs women repressors? no doutb about that in my mind,they do it.it isnot islamic to repress women,it is unislamic, islam give women same right it gives to men.

[Sophist]

KILROY-SILK QUITS THE BBC

TV presenter Robert Kilroy-Silk has quit the BBC following a row over anti-Arab comments he made in a newspaper article.

 

Mr Kilroy-Silk, who presents the Kilroy show on BBC1, referred to Arabs as "suicide bombers, limb amputators, women repressors".

 

The former Labour MP was unrepentant about the comments he made in a Sunday Express column but said he realised it had caused the BBC "difficulties".

 

"I have been overwhelmed by the support from the general public, and I continue to believe that it is my right to express my views, however uncomfortable they may be," he said.

 

"However, I recognise the difficulties this has caused the BBC, and I believe my decision is the right way to resolve the situation.

 

The offending article

 

 

 

"I believe this is the right moment to leave the programme and concentrate my energies in other directions."

 

Jana Bennett, the BBC's director of television, said Mr Kilroy-Silk's comments made his position as host of topical discussion show untenable.

 

"I would like to say that this has never been about freedom of speech," she said.

 

"Presenters of this kind of programme have a responsibility to uphold the BBC's impartiality.

 

"This does not mean that people who express highly controversial views are not welcome on the BBC.

 

"But they cannot be presenters of a news, current affairs or topical discussion programme."

[Dhagax-Tuur]

*** All Wr Wb.

 

This response suits the bigot by a sister:

===============================================

 

Anti-Islamic Extremists and Fanatics

Jan 13, 2004

By Yamin Zakaria

 

The Americans have Daniel Pipe, the Dutch had Pim Fortuyn, the French have Brigit Bardot, the Italians have Oriana Fallaci, and the British have Robert Kilroy-Silk. They are all anti-Islamic bigots, zealots, extremists and fanatics, driven by their intense hatred and racism. The words of such people have contributed towards the legitimisation of the violence inflicted in place like Iraq. Furthermore, it encourages brutality amongst their soldiers, no surprise to hear the incident of an Iraqi prisoner viciously kicked to death. One can only imagine, all the other cases that do not get reported. Torture and execution has become routine in the prisons of Guantanamo Bay, Bagram and Abu Gharib. Such events resonate the era of Hitler and Mussolini.

 

So there is a pattern, any nation fuelled by fanaticism, racism, bigotry and extremism will inevitably inflict violence and commit genocide upon other nations. One of the earliest examples is the medieval crusade. Richard, the homosexual barbarian needlessly slaughtered thousands of Muslim prisoners, including women and children. Prior to which, the fanatical crusaders engaged in cannibalism. Why not? Since these Christian terrorists were eating the body of Christ and drinking his blood on a daily basis. The chivalrous, upright and magnanimous Salahhuddin Ayubi on recapturing Palestine did not allow such treatment of the Christian prisoners and communities in retaliation. This is an example of real “tolerance”! Even today, one can witness these Christian communities in the Fertile Crescent.

 

Then came the era of colonisation by the new ‘enlightened’ secular Europe. Nations were enslaved and exterminated. Aztecs, Incas, Mayas, Native Americans, Africa and the Aborigines of Australia are just few examples, and such events have no parallels in Islamic history. In the mid 20th century the fanaticism and extremism manifested in the rise of Fascism and Nazism in ‘civilised’ Europe. In a continuation of this legacy, we have the current Capitalist-Zionist-Christian axis waging new wave of brutal colonisation and subjugation. In between, Uncle Sam pillaged Vietnam, Korea, Central and South America.

 

Whatever the newspaper columnist Kilroy-Silk ‘thinks’ or writes, gas chambers, Nuclear weapons, cluster bombs, Agent Orange, Inquisition, Fascism and Nazism are all European inventions, has no root or connection with the Islamic civilisation. Ask a simple question, who are largest producers of these weapons, and then profit handsomely from its sale? Kilroy-Silk is right, all the Arab countries together export less then Finland and therefore could not achieve this.

 

Scholarly discourse between civilisations can bring fruitful result in building tolerance and mutual respect. As an example, the era of the Islamic rule in Spain. There was no Islamic Inquisition or the ritual burning of Jews and witches. Making vitriolic statements against the Islam without having the courage or the intellect to debate the subject with its proponents is not discourse, nor does it comply with the values espoused by the advocates of free society. Rather, it indicates cowardice and implicit admission of intellectual defeat. What, makes these people anti-Islamic fanatics, is simply the lack of substantiation and rationality behind their opinions.

 

If anyone else expressed such malicious diatribe against any other community there would have been instant restraint and gagging. If the perpetrator is a Muslim, one can by pass everything and, in Guantanamo Bay style imprison him/her indefinitely in a cage, without legal representation or charge, then wave the flag of human rights over his/her head.

 

Not for the first time, Robert Kilroy-Silk has made such a venomous attack. Which has exceeded well beyond the standard of the normal quota of anti-Islamic diatribe reserved for the Muslims. His one-dimensional view of the Islamic world as inherently evil, versus the angelic Anglo-Saxon civilisation that can do no wrong, makes the likes of George Bush, and General William Boynkin geniuses.

 

He addressed the Arabs/Muslims in the most disparaging manner. Has he ever read the Arab history and comprehend the factors, that has shaped the current situation? Unlikely, for a start, he thinks Iran is an Arab country! None of the leadership in the Arab countries reflects the will of its people. The British, the French and the US employs the services of these Bedouin Arab ‘kings’ and despots, now includes the schizophrenic clown of Libya. The last time the Arab masses expressed their voices in desiring a representative government was in Algeria. The elections were suspended. There was no outcry for democracy from the West! If the government produced is not desirable, then suppress it or just conveniently label it as a dictator, despite popular support.

 

Kilroy-Silk describes the war on Iraq as ‘liberation’, even though the legal pretext was finding WMD, which is conveniently avoided. If Iraq has been liberated, why is it that, Blair and Bush always addresses their soldiers in a secure military barrack, rather than the cheering crowds in the streets of Baghdad or Basra or Mosul? Did the Iraqis ask for their liberation by the bombs and bullets of the coalition forces? If so, where are they? Frankly, it is imperial arrogance for Blair and Bush to claim, as white vigilantes to know what is best for the Iraqis, even though, they neither represent them nor have they sought their opinion prior to invading their country.

 

He fervently taints 9/11 as if it is the beginning of human history, prior to which no society experienced such destruction. What about the atrocities that have been committed in the name of 9/11, which exceeds far greater then 3000? They are faceless, nameless, and a figure that no one is interested in, be it 30,000 or 40,000. It does not touch the conscience of the likes of Kilroy-Silk. Besides, the victims in the in the streets of Baghdad or Kabul had absolutely no connection with the architects of 9/11.

 

The 9/11 was not an unprovoked first strike but a retaliatory strike in response to the ongoing slaughter in Iraq and Palestine, assuming that Muslims were behind it. Muslims and non-Muslims around the world, including large section of the masses in Europe took the view that “America got what it deserves” and it was due. So, why is Kilroy-Silk shocked to see those Muslims celebrating seeing dead Americans, as many non-Muslims were also celebrating in Europe and around the world? If I were the father of Muhammad Durra (father of the 12 year old Palestinian child shot dead captured on TV) that is exactly how I would feel. Why does he expect those Muslims to feel love rather then hate for the US, after the last 50 years of oppression and subjugation in their own lands? Only a person with an irrational and a sick mind can make such proposition.

 

Kilroy-Silk refers to the suicide bombings as if it is a recent invention of the Muslims. They are sacrificing their lives to defend their lands. They are the occupied and not the occupiers. They are the oppressed and not the oppressors. Kilroy-Silk’s paradigm is that, the West is engaged in ‘defensive’ war, with countries that are in distant lands. Hence, the dropping of Daisy cutters, Cluster bomb, and cruise missiles does not constitute terrorism, can be excused, even though it leads to terrorising the entire nation? But any form of retaliation is simply terrorism. How convenient.

 

He rants about Saddam using chemical and Biological weapons, again conveniently ignores that it was his proud ancestor, Winston Churchill, who started the tradition of gassing in Iraq. Even then, can one seriously propose that the West were entirely innocent about the production, deployment, and usage of those weapons under Saddam? These types of weapons primarily exists in the US, Europe and Israel. No doubt, under the Kilroy ‘principle’ this is the sole prerogative of the civilised West.

 

Kilroy-Silk, calls Iran, Libya, and Syria vile regimes, not that I am a supporter of these regimes but if they are, why? Is it simply because Bush has labelled Iran as part of an axis of evil? I cannot think what these governments have done that is worse then the conduct and track record of the British and the American government.

 

On the subject of Economics, he refers to the American benevolence of American ‘aid’ to the Muslim countries. Really? Capitalist nation are charitable institutions? Excuse my ignorance. I thought economic ‘aid’ was fat loan with fat interests. What good is aid when there is ever-rising debt, resulting in the net flow of wealth from the poor to the rich (West)? This is no different from the televised charity donations to relieve guilt, after impoverishing the poor countries through the interests and loans.

 

He gloats about the asylum seekers arriving from the Islamic countries to the UK. The Muslims would not be arriving in the West, had it not been for the colonisation (economic and military), and the constant interference by imposing dictators and despots. On the issue of asylum and persecution, the Islamic societies also provided sanctuary to those persecuted in Europe during medieval times. He also forgets, how his forefathers persecuted and brutalised the Irish community for centuries. Which is easily comparable to the Nazi persecution of the Jews.

 

Mr Kilroy criticises the Islamic penal code with a chauvinistic undertone. Why is his harsh criticism reserved for the Muslims when the US also employs capital punishment and the majority of the British public are in favour of reintroducing it? The notion of capital punishment is not an Islamic invention. It also exists in abundance within the Judeo-Christian traditions.

 

Then the usual reference to Islam oppressing women, but yet Islam continues attract women from the West in droves, despite the intensity of the anti-Islamic propaganda. If Mr Kilroy-Silk is convinced about his assertion, then why does he not try to rescue the likes of the British journalist, Yvonne Ridley, who embraced Islam after being released from the captivity of the Taliban?

 

He vilifies the ritual Islamic slaughtering, yet he is silent on the identical process used by the Jews. Why the selective targeting of Muslims? This is clear evidence of a prejudiced mind. He then further demonstrates his arrogance, ignorance and racism, by claming that the Arabs made no contribution towards human civilisation.

 

“After all, the Arab countries are not exactly shining examples of civilisation, are they? Few of them make much contribution to the welfare of the rest of the world. Indeed, apart from oil - which was discovered, is produced and is paid for by the West - what do they contribute? “

 

I thought Mesopotamia (Iraq) was the foundation of human civilisation. Any individual with a rudimentary knowledge of history, science, medicine, astronomy and mathematics would have appreciated the role played by Islamic civilisation in contributing towards the European renaissance. He should at the least visit the various museums in London to get bit of education about the Islamic civilisation, which may help to curb his arrogant and racist views.

 

The mentality of Kilroy-Silk is no different from the common racist and illiterate football hooligans. His recent outburst, devoid of any rational or intellectual basis is an evidence of this. In fact, even Nick Griffin of the BNP (British National Party) would have expressed a more objective view about the Muslims/Arabs. Therefore, no surprise, that Kilroy-Silk did not comment on the illiterate British football hooligans in Iraq that viciously kicked a prisoner to death. Again Kilroy-Silk should take note, such examples are a manifestation of racism, intolerance, and cowardice.

 

Kilroy-Silk, most likely represents the like-minded minority of right wing racists. The vast majority of the British public are noble and fair-minded, thus, they came out to protest against the unjust war on Iraq. Indeed, the entire world faces real danger from these ant-Islamic fanatics, and extremists, whether they are in the mass media, entertainment or shady figures behind governments like the Neo-Cons.