Post a Reply
Back to the Forum
Posted: 02:32 Jan 11 2004
Kilroy: those damn dirty Arabs!
Kilroy-Silk, former Labour MP and soon-to-be former presenter of Jerry Springer on earl-grey, is under investigation for inciting racial hatered according to The Independent.
news.independent.co.uk/uk/media/story.jsp?story=479073
In a column for the Sunday Express headlined "We Owe Arabs Nothing", he said: "What do [Arabs] think we feel about them? That we adore them for the way they murdered more than 3,000 civilians on September 11 and then danced in the hot, dusty streets to celebrate the murders? That we admire them for the cold-blooded killings in Mombasa, Yemen and elsewhere? That we admire them for being suicide bombers, limb-amputators, women repressors? I don't think the Arab states should start a debate about what is really loathsome."
Driving the stake further into his career, he went onto say:
"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?
"Can you think of anything? Anything really useful? Anything really valuable? Something we really need, could not do without?"
Public suicide is the thing this year luvvie!
news.independent.co.uk/uk/media/story.jsp?story=479073
In a column for the Sunday Express headlined "We Owe Arabs Nothing", he said: "What do [Arabs] think we feel about them? That we adore them for the way they murdered more than 3,000 civilians on September 11 and then danced in the hot, dusty streets to celebrate the murders? That we admire them for the cold-blooded killings in Mombasa, Yemen and elsewhere? That we admire them for being suicide bombers, limb-amputators, women repressors? I don't think the Arab states should start a debate about what is really loathsome."
Driving the stake further into his career, he went onto say:
"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?
"Can you think of anything? Anything really useful? Anything really valuable? Something we really need, could not do without?"
Public suicide is the thing this year luvvie!
28 Replies and 3992 Views in Total. [ 1 2 ]
RKS is a smarmy Bas***d!
But in no way let that affect what i'm going to say, this isnt 'cos i dislike him (tho i do). *Gasp!* i'm about to agree with the liberals!
The term "Arabs" is banded about too often when what most people mean is Muslims.
Now, many people dont think highly of that faith, they think it's repressive, in general and especially to women.
This isnt the case.
A good friend of mine is from persia(sp?) (now Iran). she tells me, and i have read that women, whilst being submissive to their husbands (as the koran tells them) are very valued members of society. they were encouraged to train as lawyers, doctors, and many other respcted professions. (i believe this was before a certain regime came in in Iran, but i forget the name. the regime that permitted this freedom was something lile Shik. you all know how crapi am with names, esp foreign ones!)
Any hoo!
All most muslims do is follow the Koran. anyone notice that christianity also requires women to be subservient to their husbands? We often forget that but it is part of the christian text.
the muslims we really dont like are extreamists. those who brainwash the bombers with things like in heaven they will have 73 virgins!
Most muslims are very nice people, i even know a few white converts to the faith.
And can christianity claim to be any better? Most christians are good people, doesnt stop the Davis Koresh's, the Moonies and other radical cults.
thats basicaly all extreamist muslims are, a muslim cult.
dont tar them all with the same brush.
And RKS is just a short sited little man who couldnt make it as a politician and cant think further than his *ahem* apendage. Though in the cuirrent climate of the goverment he'd probably be welcomed back into the fold with open arms.
*steps down from soap box and goes back to Atilla the Hun's side*
(Edited by Cat 12/01/2004 00:43)
But in no way let that affect what i'm going to say, this isnt 'cos i dislike him (tho i do). *Gasp!* i'm about to agree with the liberals!
The term "Arabs" is banded about too often when what most people mean is Muslims.
Now, many people dont think highly of that faith, they think it's repressive, in general and especially to women.
This isnt the case.
A good friend of mine is from persia(sp?) (now Iran). she tells me, and i have read that women, whilst being submissive to their husbands (as the koran tells them) are very valued members of society. they were encouraged to train as lawyers, doctors, and many other respcted professions. (i believe this was before a certain regime came in in Iran, but i forget the name. the regime that permitted this freedom was something lile Shik. you all know how crapi am with names, esp foreign ones!)
Any hoo!
All most muslims do is follow the Koran. anyone notice that christianity also requires women to be subservient to their husbands? We often forget that but it is part of the christian text.
the muslims we really dont like are extreamists. those who brainwash the bombers with things like in heaven they will have 73 virgins!
Most muslims are very nice people, i even know a few white converts to the faith.
And can christianity claim to be any better? Most christians are good people, doesnt stop the Davis Koresh's, the Moonies and other radical cults.
thats basicaly all extreamist muslims are, a muslim cult.
dont tar them all with the same brush.
And RKS is just a short sited little man who couldnt make it as a politician and cant think further than his *ahem* apendage. Though in the cuirrent climate of the goverment he'd probably be welcomed back into the fold with open arms.
*steps down from soap box and goes back to Atilla the Hun's side*
(Edited by Cat 12/01/2004 00:43)
Posted: 00:37 Jan 12 2004
Great heavens above, I agree with Cat again. 
(Although I ain't no Liberal thanks!)
Many people automatically assume "Arab" as a synonym for "Muslim", even though there have been Christian and Jewish communities among the Arab peoples for millennia: there are many references to Sultans making provision for their Christian and Jewish subjects from the era of the Crusades. In fact, when the "holy warriors" reached Jerusalem, they happily ransacked Christian holy sites along with Islam's.
I agree absolutely that the fanatics are about as representative of Islam as the late Timothy McVae was of Christendom. Our assumptions of fanaticism have even redefined Islamic words in the popular consciousness: "jihad" is taken to mean "holy war", when in fact it means "struggle". A Muslim friend from college quite often said he had a jihad getting his Sociology homework in!
(Although I ain't no Liberal thanks!) Many people automatically assume "Arab" as a synonym for "Muslim", even though there have been Christian and Jewish communities among the Arab peoples for millennia: there are many references to Sultans making provision for their Christian and Jewish subjects from the era of the Crusades. In fact, when the "holy warriors" reached Jerusalem, they happily ransacked Christian holy sites along with Islam's.
I agree absolutely that the fanatics are about as representative of Islam as the late Timothy McVae was of Christendom. Our assumptions of fanaticism have even redefined Islamic words in the popular consciousness: "jihad" is taken to mean "holy war", when in fact it means "struggle". A Muslim friend from college quite often said he had a jihad getting his Sociology homework in!
Posted: 02:43 Jan 12 2004 
You might want to consider that not everyone here shares the knowledge dished out at Media AS, bub. You really might confuse the living hell out of somebody here without realising it. Now that's my job!
by Havoc
ever heard of uses and grats?
EDIT: Oh wait, you went and explained it anyhoo, 'tho not how I'd try and explain it. Sorry!
Really? Oops, and that was one of my fave words too, considering its (incorrect) meaning... nuts! Oh well, ta for the re-education!
by Byron
many "jihad" to believe "holy war", when in fact it means "struggle"
(Edited by Alan 12/01/2004 17:04)
Posted: 16:57 Jan 12 2004
Oh, and latest news has it Kilroy's been un-officially sacked...
media.guardian.co.uk/broadcast/story/0,7493,1125057,00.html
Hopefully he'll follow the suggestions made in the bottom paragraph... plus stop writing for the Express 
media.guardian.co.uk/broadcast/story/0,7493,1125057,00.html
Hopefully he'll follow the suggestions made in the bottom paragraph
... plus stop writing for the Express
Posted: 19:19 Jan 16 2004
I note he's still getting the cash from his production company. They've got rid of the monkey, but he remains the organ grinder.
And of course, there's those newly discovered champions of free speech the Daily Express to help out with any financial difficulties.
Their front page campaign frothing blood at all this "political corectness gone mad" (TM) forgot to mention that the BBC sacked Rob Liddle from Today last year for ruminating on the effects of inbreeding amongst the Countryside Aliance in his Guardian column.
Colour me shocked.
And of course, there's those newly discovered champions of free speech the Daily Express to help out with any financial difficulties.
Their front page campaign frothing blood at all this "political corectness gone mad" (TM) forgot to mention that the BBC sacked Rob Liddle from Today last year for ruminating on the effects of inbreeding amongst the Countryside Aliance in his Guardian column.
Colour me shocked.
Posted: 20:37 Jan 16 2004
I would say i'm sorry, and i am because he's still going to earn fat pay cheques for producing a show.
Either sack him or don't. Putting a new frontman in and still paying Killroy makes the BBC look like hypocrites. I mean they are hypocrites, but now everyone can see it.
Either sack him or don't. Putting a new frontman in and still paying Killroy makes the BBC look like hypocrites. I mean they are hypocrites, but now everyone can see it.
Posted: 00:46 Jan 17 2004
Agreed. But depressing as it is he won't suffer any serious consequence other than a later alarm call, I don't think any other course of action could be justified under the grounds used by the BBC and myself for his removal. He had to go because he was not longer able to function impartially, not because he held certain ignorant and crass points of view.
Unless he can be shown to be putting editorial pressure onto the show, his views as producer are, however repugnant, and they are repugnant, are no grounds to sack him. To do so would be crossing the line to punishing him for his opinions, which I could never support.
I am glad he hasn't been allowed to remain under the pretext of an insincere apology. I can think of little good to say about the man, but at least I can't accuse him of being two-faced.
Unless he can be shown to be putting editorial pressure onto the show, his views as producer are, however repugnant, and they are repugnant, are no grounds to sack him. To do so would be crossing the line to punishing him for his opinions, which I could never support.
I am glad he hasn't been allowed to remain under the pretext of an insincere apology. I can think of little good to say about the man, but at least I can't accuse him of being two-faced.
Posted: 01:02 Jan 17 2004 Watch one of his shows about cheating, you'll see the hypocrite then!
by Byron
I can think of little good to say about the man, but at least I can't accuse him of being two-faced.
Also, he ordered 1 of his staff to call a dunblane victims family the same night of the tragerdy to appear on his show the next day. I dont know if they did (i dont think they did) but if they had, he'd he all nicey nice. Never mind disturbing their grief!
He's a turd on the face of humanity.
Posted: 00:15 Jan 19 2004 [ 1 2 ]