?

LOVELY MAN !

He sold out a long time ago. He isn't important anymore.

Who?..

or more appropriately... Who cares?

has anyone actually read the column? Id like to read it before i make my mind up about it.

leave the poor guy alone .... as anyone on here never made a mistake in there lives he seems a ok to me :)

i dont know my richards from my roberts tonite and im stone cold sober lol:loopy:

I recently met a woman who was on his show and she said that he breezed on, went through an A-Z of swear words (THE most graphic ones!), said they were the only things they couldn't say and went straight into the show.

Just if anyone was looking for a challenge...

Robert

I love the contradiction of living in a country that prides itself on "freedom of speech" yet when it is exercised, the person is persecuted for it. Lets face it, if Kilroy had made a few negative stereotypical comments about the French, as journalists often do, few would batter an eye lid. Yet if it refers to a country where the population is asian/black in majority, race is dragged into it when it doesn't have to be.

I have read the transcipt and it was utterly offensive and basically incites racial hatred.

The weird thing is that apparently he said it nearly a year ago and its just been dragged up and that has lead to his programme ('Kilroy') being cancelled as of this week.

FYI

We owe Arabs nothing.

WE ARE told by some of the more hysterical critics of the war on terror that "it is destroying the Arab world". So? Should w e be worried about that? Shouldn't the destruction of the despotic, barbarous and corrupt Arab states and their replacement by democratic governments be a war aim? After all, the Arab countries are not exactly shining examples of civilisation, are they? Few of them make much contribution to the w elfare 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? A nything really useful? Anything really valuable? Something we really need, could not do without? No, nor can I. Indeed, the Arab countries put together export less than Finland.

We're told that the Arabs loathe us. Really? For liberating the Iraqis? For subsidising the lifestyles of people in Egypt and Jordan, to name but two, for giving them vast amounts of aid? For providing them w ith science, medicine, technology and all the other benefits of the West? They should go down on their knees and thank God for the munificence of the United States. What do they think we feel about them? That we adore them for the w ay 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, Y emen and elsewhere? That we admire them for being suicide bombers, limb-amputators, womenrepressors? I don't think the Arab states should start a debate about what is really loathsome.

But why, in any case, should we be concerned that they feel angry and loathe us? The Arab world has not exactly earned our respect, has it? Iran is a vile, terrorist-supporting regime - part of the axis of evil. So is the Saddam Hussein-supporting Syria. So is Libya. Indeed, most of them chant support for Saddam.

That is to say they support an evil dictator who has gassed hundreds of thousands of their fellow Arabs and tortured and murdered thousands more. How can they do this and expect our respect?

Why do they imagine that only they can feel anger, call people loathsome? It is the equivalent of all the European nations coming out in support of Hitler the moment he was attacked by the US, because he was European, despite the fact that he was attempting to exterminate the Jews - and Arabs.

Moreover, the people who claim we are loathsome are currently threatening our civilian populations with chemical and biological weapons. They are promising to let suicide bombers loose in Western and American cities. They are trying to terrorise us, disrupt our lives.
And then they expect us to be careful of their sensibilities? We have thousands of asylum seekers from Iran, Iraq, Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries living happily in this country on social security.

This shows what their own people think of the Arab regimes, doesn't it? There is not one single British asylum seeker in any Arab country. That says it all about which country deserves the epithet loathsome. GEORGE GALLOWAY, the member of parliament for Baghdad Central, as his tormentors describe him, called the British and American troops "wolves" and called for the Arab countries to rise up and fight them and to cut off oil from the combatants. Later he called upon British troops to refuse to obey "illegal orders".He has, predictably, been vilified. His comments have been termed a disgrace, disgusting, outrageous and so on.

He has been called a loony, naive, gullible and a traitor. There have been demands that George's constituency party should deselect him, that his constituents should not vote for him at the next general election, and that he should be deported to Iraq. No one, as yet, has demanded that he be put in the stocks or burnt at the stake, though no doubt this will come.
But why all the fuss? Why is everyone getting into such an excitable lather over the predictable remarks of a no-mark?
Who with any sense cares an Iraqi dinar for what dear George thinks? Like Clare Short, George is a licensed court jester. He acts the buffoon while she's the straight part of the act, though she exaggerates her sanctimonious seriousness.

Neither are taken seriously. Both are totally discredited laughing stocks that add to the variety of political life. At least George is open, honest and sincere

I think the man is vile

The Sunday Express are of course trying to defend him, as was yesterday's Express but I think they are on their own on this one

It wasnt "a few unpleasant comments"

and he wasnt "just being politically incorrect"

He was saying that the entire population of an enormous part of the world were suicide-bombers and that they had nothing to offer this country or any of the western world.

That is like saying that all the Irish are terrorists

or that all the English are football hooligans

It plays straight into the hands of people with narrow-minds

We have benefitted immensely from the middle-east over thousands of years, art, language, mathematics, to say nothing of the wealth they have generated for us etc

And I shall try not to mention the fact that Jesus was a Palestinian, I know how some people like to forget that small fact

I have never liked Kilroy, he is always rude and unpleasant on the bits of his show I am ever unfortunate enough to see, and would be more than happy never to see him again

Originally posted by Belle
I have never liked Kilroy, he is always rude and unpleasant on the bits of his show I am ever unfortunate enough to see, and would be more than happy never to see him again
I think that's quite harsh to be perfectly honest. We've all said and done things which we don't mean. I think Kilroy is a good honest man, and he just put pen to paper without fully thinking it through.

In all honesty Sidla I disagree.. but I'll agree to disagree..

Having sat through a couple of his shows and heard the odd snippet of tripe from his column.. I have to say he's a journalist/celebrity who let the power go to his head and who started to believe his own press.

He honestly seems to believe he has power and is the voice of reason. In terms of free speech, his shows are/were so biased towards his own "hallowed" opinion shown by the way he belittles anyone who he feels is wrong.. It becomes something of a bad joke.. Of course there were always exceptions and he did show some compassion from time to time.. but the overriding theme was ignorance and brow beating.

I for one am glad he's off the screen.. it's only a shame that he's getting all this attention for being an idiot..

Hmmm, thats the first time i've read the column. He really didn't think that one through, did he? He could have made a reasonable argument if he had taken time over it. Instead, he's stereotyped a whole population, which isn't acceptable, regardless of race or country. And yes it's just as bad to speak about the french like that, or the welsh or whatever.
anyways , just my humble opinion.
ho hum!

Andy78, that would be your humble opinion AND mine too


All the derogatory terms I fancy using seem to have to do with men and masturbation, and actually I dont see masturbation in a negative light, so I will have to think up a better negative term...watch this space

Originally posted by Sidla
I think that's quite harsh to be perfectly honest. We've all said and done things which we don't mean. I think Kilroy is a good honest man, and he just put pen to paper without fully thinking it through.

Sidla, I respect your right to write what you like, but I also respect my right to disagree with you.

Kilroy has not in my experience ever shown himself to be a good and honest man.

I would be interested in some examples of occasions where you thought he was. Actually he is obviously very honest, it is the goodness I am objecting to.

And secondly, I fail to see how he can deliver such a savage endictment, for that is what it is, almost "by accident" or "without thinking it through".

Again I would appreciate hearing your reasoning.

Originally posted by Belle
All the derogatory terms I fancy using seem to have to do with men and masturbation, and actually I dont see masturbation in a negative light, so I will have to think up a better negative term...watch this space

I'll keep watching, it sounds quite interesting

Originally posted by Belle
Sidla, I respect your right to write what you like, but I also respect my right to disagree with you.

Kilroy has not in my experience ever shown himself to be a good and honest man.

I would be interested in some examples of occasions where you thought he was. Actually he is obviously very honest, it is the goodness I am objecting to.

And secondly, I fail to see how he can deliver such a savage endictment, for that is what it is, almost "by accident" or "without thinking it through".

Again I would appreciate hearing your reasoning.
Well without actually knowing him it's hard to tell wether someone is honest or not. But since I don't know him I would prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt rather than condemn him for a rather silly mistake.

I think, when you are writing a column in a national newspaper, you have a certain responsibility to not pollute the press with irrational ravings based on a flawed belief in social darwinism and dogmatic stereotyping, a studied ignorance of history and a fanatical loathing of fanaticism...

It's an op-ed piece, but there is very little 'ed' and it is all 'op'

He demonstrates his utter ignorance of what constitutes an arab, the arabic world, islam, the middle east, and in fact anything that is not within his limited cultural vocabulary.

He is an idiot, and he has now been shown up as one.

Unlike Kilroy i darent comment for fear of similar smaller scale forum versions of what happened to him. I shouldnt feel this way but i do.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
I think, when you are writing a column in a national newspaper, you have a certain responsibility to not pollute the press with irrational ravings based on a flawed belief in social darwinism and dogmatic stereotyping, a studied ignorance of history and a fanatical loathing of fanaticism...

It's an op-ed piece, but there is very little 'ed' and it is all 'op'

He demonstrates his utter ignorance of what constitutes an arab, the arabic world, islam, the middle east, and in fact anything that is not within his limited cultural vocabulary.

He is an idiot, and he has now been shown up as one.
Well I agree that it was quite an irattional thing to write, but when the article was originaly published in April, not one complaint was recieved about it.

I think that had he put more thought into it he wouldn't have written it, but people have a tendancy to get complacent and forget that sometimes people can be offended by your opinions.

I'm sorry but I agree in the most part about Arab regimes.

Kilroy shouldn't feel the need to apologise for any of his remarks one bit.
Maybe he shouldn't have labelled ALL arabs, because it's blatently not true.

However that being said there are many Arab states that perform these practices Kilroys states, and they ARE oppressors of Women and DO amputate limbs for minor crimes (however if it works....!).

These types of regimes are barbaric and for a democratic nation we all should be appalled at the way they operate and treat their people.

I'm sorry, Kilroy has the courage of his convictions and said nothing which wasn't true.

The BBC are fools for sacking him, I only hope that ITV or another station take him on.

dabouncer is braver than me!

Originally posted by kittykat
dabouncer is braver than me!

Indeed. I'm waiting for the tirade of the bleeding heart liberals to preach about generalisations, stereotypes, yada yada...... whilst 'supporting' freedom of speech.

Doohhh, you're definately in "behaving like a nob" mode tonight T020. There is nothing "bleeding heart liberal" about not inciting racism.

There are regimes around the world that are morally bankrupt. That does not make the people that they rule the same.

Originally posted by Tony
Doohhh, you're definately in "behaving like a nob" mode tonight T020. There is nothing "bleeding heart liberal" about not inciting racism.

There are regimes around the world that are morally bankrupt. That does not make the people that they rule the same.

So there are no Arab states that oppress women or amputate limbs? No suicide bombers from any Arab countries? The only mistake he made was to imply that he was referring to *ALL* Arabs. Other than that, I fail to see how pointing out a few traits of some Arabs incites racism.

Don't be so quick off the draw T020. I agree with you. I don't agree that generalisations should be made - like Kilroy-Silk did. It incites racism.

i think most of us agree here, kind of. Basically, the points made, may well have a grounding for an argument. It goes wrong when a whole population is dragged into it. All nations have their moral flaws, some more than others. That doesnt mean you can tar everyone with the same brush. I think thats where Kilroy should have stopped and thought on. If he had thought it through properly, he could have created a decent argument. All of this trouble has essentially been caused by sloppy wording.

Originally posted by Andy78
i think most of us agree here, kind of. Basically, the points made, may well have a grounding for an argument. It goes wrong when a whole population is dragged into it. All nations have their moral flaws, some more than others. That doesnt mean you can tar everyone with the same brush. I think thats where Kilroy should have stopped and thought on. If he had thought it through properly, he could have created a decent argument. All of this trouble has essentially been caused by sloppy wording.

I read in todays Telegraph though that the article had been reworded by his secretary to relate to current events, rather than the war in Iraq which it was initially written for last year. As a result, not all of the wording is actually down to Kilroy.

Thats an interesting point. to be honest, no one knows that his original words were printed. It's very easy to jump on the band wagon, when we don't even know all of the facts.

Originally posted by t020
I read in todays Telegraph though that the article had been reworded by his secretary to relate to current events, rather than the war in Iraq which it was initially written for last year. As a result, not all of the wording is actually down to Kilroy.
Well maybe, but it still had his name on it. It was down to him to make sure that it met his approval.

Originally posted by t020
I love the contradiction of living in a country that prides itself on "freedom of speech" yet when it is exercised, the person is persecuted for it. Lets face it, if Kilroy had made a few negative stereotypical comments about the French, as journalists often do, few would batter an eye lid. Yet if it refers to a country where the population is asian/black in majority, race is dragged into it when it doesn't have to be.

t020; not being an Arab, we would not expect you to find Kilroys comments offensive.

Being an Arab myself, I'm totally disgusted by these comments.

I see Kilroy wasn't able to resist bringing Iran and Syria into his vile rant, no doubt in an attempt to turn public opinion against them just before American cruise missiles land in Tehran and Damascus - a technique the Murdoch press machine and the Telegraph skillfully used against Iraq, Sudan, Libya, Somalia... But given their political leanings, I am not surprised.

Funnily enough, the Nazis used a similar trick against the Jews - issuing propaganda that the Jews did were conspiring against Germany from within. And we all know what happened there.

But then, t020, being a mere child, we would not expect you to know any better.

As always, your response to this will be to accuse me of playing the race card.

Abby,

Whilst I appreciate your comments and value that you may be offended. I think Kilroy made a genuin mistake that his generalisation included all arabs.

However you surely can't tell me that there arn't Arab (or muslim maybe a better word) nations that perform the barbaric attrocities that Kilroy was saying?

I don't think for one minute Kilroy is a racist and I don't think that his comments spread to British Arabs or Muslims as I myself am not racist in any way.

However recently in Afganistan ( a muslim nation ) the oppresion of women has been widely publicised and they class them as second class citizens.

That's totally out of order and I for one am very angry at the way these muslim governments and a lot of the male population treat their femal population.

Also the amputation of limbs for minor crimes is barbaric and frankly I'm not at all suprised at the level of support Kilroy has received from the British public.
It was only yesterday I saw on the news a British Arab saying he accepted Kilroy made a mistake by generalising all Arabs and he agreed that their are Arab states that have disgusting regimes that need to be changed.

You can't honestly say that all Kilroy's words were untrue and thatr he was just inciting Racism surely. Becuause frankly only a fool would believe that.

In case I get labelled with the racist card and not quoting facts please see some thoughts below from Britsh Arabs in support of Kilroy

From the Daily Telegraph:
"Kilroy-Silk is right about the Middle East, say Arabs
By Ibrahim Nawar
(Filed: 11/01/2004)


Ibrahim Nawar, an Egyptian, is the Head of the Board of Management of Arab Press Freedom Watch, a non-profit organisation based in London that works to promote freedom of expression in the Arab world.

"I fully support Robert Kilroy-Silk and salute him as an advocate of freedom of expression. I would like to voice my solidarity with him and with all those who face the censorship of such a basic human right.

"I agree with much of what he says about Arab regimes. There is a very long history of oppression in the Arab world, particularly in the states he mentions: Iran, Iraq, Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, as well as in Sudan and Tunisia.

"These regimes are not based on democracy and their legitimacy comes from military dicatorships or inherited systems. The basic right of an individual to voice his or her opinion is not granted in any kind of form in the Arab world."

Read the whole article :
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/01/11/nsilk112.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/01/11/ixnewstop.html

Seems that it's not just some Brits that agree with Kilroy Silk - some Arabs do too !

Robert kilroy Silk is right and I support him 100%!!!
whatever happened to the basic right of "FREEDOM OF SPEECH"!!!

Originally posted by halevan
?

LOVELY MAN !

Originally posted by halevan
Robert kilroy Silk is right and I support him 100%!!!

Buzz, repetition Nicholas.:D

Freedom of speech does not extend to inciting racial hatred.

I agree with you there, however I don't think that is what Kiloy intended or did.

Just to point out that my opinion of Kilroy was based mostly on his show and his attitude/arrogance displayed on that.. I made up my mind that he was someone who I'd never invite into my home a long time ago.

The article in the press and the current hoo-ha is just grist to the mill and certainly not wagon jumping...

Sorry i don't have time to read this whole thread. But having looked in to this and the claims of 'Arab States' vs 'Arabs'. I have found that he has a history of insulting Arabs, not just in this particular case. It will all come out and the man will be sacked, this is just his last gasp attempt to save his career.

He said about Ireland ""a country peopled by peasants, priests and pixies".
About Muslims - "Muslims everywhere behave with equal savagery. They behead criminals, stone to death female - only female - adulteresses, throw acid in the faces of women who refuse to wear the chador, mutilate the genitals of young girls and ritually abuse animals," Express 1995 (notice he did not mention "States").
Another comment from him about the looting in Iraq - "a load of thieving Arabs". What's wrong with this? Well how does he KNOW they were Arabs? There are many nationalities and religions in Iraq. That is the problem.
It's how he measures all Muslims/Arabs with the same brush. Obviously there are bad Arabs and Muslims, nobody is arguing with that. But Arabs in the UK don't perform the things he is accusing them of.

Originally posted by back2basics
Obviously there are bad Arabs and Muslims, nobody is arguing with that. But Arabs in the UK don't perform the things he is accusing them of.
That's not strictly ture tho is it B2B.
Ok I cannot remember the whole story but I will seach for a link.
Basically it was a muslim family and the daughter decided to marry a white man. The father of the family was so outraged at this that instead of allowing the marriage to take place he murdered his daughter.

Another story where a similar thing took place, and the daughter wanted to marry the man she loved rather than a man the father had 'arranged' for his daughter.
This promted the girls brother and cousin to murder her on her wedding day then flee abroad.

So at the least certain muslims of the UK still hold fanatical and barbaric views of western society, attitudes towards women and interracial couples.

[edited links below]

This (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3247901.stm) articles outlines a similar story!
Another (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3209856.stm) story of a muslim father 'honour' killing his daughter
Yet another (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3172202.stm) honour killing story here!

Also B2B I'd appreciate links to those ''quotes'' by Kilroy.

Cheers

You don't get it do you daBouncer. It's the BLANKET statement, yes it may have happend, i would never argue with that. But what about the millions of good Arabs and Muslims? As i said there are bad Muslims, there are bad Arabs. But there are bad everything. Anyway i have been through this all before in the BNP threads, if you don't understand what racism is now, you never will. You even quoted the bit where i said "Obviously there are bad Arabs and Muslims, nobody is arguing with that."

It's like me saying all scoucers are lazy good for nothing scroungers. I would never say that, it's just not true, but there are scoucers that are like that.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/race/story/0,11374,1120849,00.html

I have another two, i just need to find them.

Just like to say though, i think RKS has done more good than bad.

Can I just note that were you to look at the global media you would be able to find plenty of "evidence" of british people being hooligans who have no interest in anything else but going to Ianappa, getting laid, drunk or picking fights at football matches..

People are people... good, bad, indifferent.. anything else is just labelling because it makes it easier to identify, persecute, epitomise, etc... others or ourselves..

But... we're getting off into a whole other topic of conversation... To quote Brian "we're all individual"..

Sooner we remember that, and stop listening to idiots like Kilroy the better

You dont get it I feel B2B.
You stated and I quote:
Obviously there are bad Arabs and Muslims, nobody is arguing with that. But Arabs in the UK don't perform the things he is accusing them of.
They Do as per my links! Duh!

I know what Kilroy was saying and I feel he 'wasn't' directing them to the Muslims and Arabs of the UK. I feel that he was directing his comments at the Arab and Muslim Regimes and those who support them that DO, do these things he speaks of.

OK the generalisation for which he appologised for where he should have stated more clearly he wasn't including UK Arabs. However the information is STILL the same, he was directing it at the regimes which are barbaric and even YOU can deny that!

DaBouncer i think you should wait before taking his side. There is much more to come out yet. It is also debatable weather he said Regimes or states in the origional article.

But let me ask you this (which is the real issue). Because (lets say) 200 Arabs have comited that crime, does it give him the right to say they all do? (he made no distinction and made these claims over several years)

I've not read the article, but I was under the impression that he said "Arabs..." not "ALL Arabs..." - both of which mean very different things!

"Girls from Bolton wear shellsuits and high heels..." is true.

"All girls from Bolton wear shellsuits and high heels..." is false.

Aren't people going a little bit over the top here?

Surely, real evil racists are much more of a problem than Kilroy...?

:loopy:

Exactly Tony. Here here!! :thumbsup:

Tony / Sidla

Kilroy never actually said 'some' Arabs though, did he? No, far easier to lump us all togther.

It's not the first time he's done it after all. I can only pray it will be the last.

He's not lumping all arabs together. I just feel that some Arabs have taken offence for offence sake.

Maybe some enjoy playing the race card (no that is not directed at you Abby).

However I think he was taken completely out of context and he was referring to the regimes and those who follow their example.

When he said 'what have Arabs given us?' well, Mathematics and Medicine. Further showing his ignorance.

Yes, but when the article was originally published back in April not 1 complaint was recieved? Can you explain that? I feel it has probably got something to do with the fact that there was plenty of news back then with the war etc. But now the papers need something to get their teeth into, and Kilroy is the unfortunate target.

Originally posted by Sidla
Yes, but when the article was originally published back in April not 1 complaint was recieved? Can you explain that? I feel it has probably got something to do with the fact that there was plenty of news back then with the war etc. But now the papers need something to get their teeth into, and Kilroy is the unfortunate target.
Seconded.
He's being made a scapegoat of and it's disgraceful!

Kilroy is being interviewd on Tonight With Trevor McDonald at 8pm ITV Monday.

I agree wholeheartedly with the fundamentals of what he's said, though agree that worded slightly differently there wouldn't have been all this to do.

Whats more, listening to radio phone-ins and speaking to Joe Public the impression I get is that most people agree with RKS.

I believe that in the present climate, people in his position should be careful what they say and how they word it.

Isn't there enough disharmony in the world today without this kind of thing rubbing up people the wrong way and making things worse?

Originally posted by Sidla
Yes, but when the article was originally published back in April not 1 complaint was recieved? Can you explain that? I feel it has probably got something to do with the fact that there was plenty of news back then with the war etc. But now the papers need something to get their teeth into, and Kilroy is the unfortunate target.

I was under the impression that the version printed last year was heavily toned down by the editor(s?) of the paper, and that the original version was submitted by his secretary by mistake last week, instead of the column he intended to publish? For some reason however, it bypassed the editors this time.

Regardless, I think the comments were, on the whole, uninformed and quite reprehensible.

Originally posted by Hodge
I was under the impression that the version printed last year was heavily toned down by the editor(s?) of the paper, and that the original version was submitted by his secretary by mistake last week, instead of the column he intended to publish. For some reason however, it bypassed the editors this time.

And isn't that grossly irresponsible?'

Originally posted by Hodge
I was under the impression that the version printed last year was heavily toned down by the editor(s?) of the paper, and that the original version was submitted by his secretary by mistake last week, instead of the column he intended to publish? For some reason however, it bypassed the editors this time.
I hadn't heard that, where did you read it?

Originally posted by Abdul
t020; not being an Arab, we would not expect you to find Kilroys comments offensive.

Being an Arab myself, I'm totally disgusted by these comments.

I see Kilroy wasn't able to resist bringing Iran and Syria into his vile rant, no doubt in an attempt to turn public opinion against them just before American cruise missiles land in Tehran and Damascus - a technique the Murdoch press machine and the Telegraph skillfully used against Iraq, Sudan, Libya, Somalia... But given their political leanings, I am not surprised.

Funnily enough, the Nazis used a similar trick against the Jews - issuing propaganda that the Jews did were conspiring against Germany from within. And we all know what happened there.

But then, t020, being a mere child, we would not expect you to know any better.

As always, your response to this will be to accuse me of playing the race card.

a) At 22, I'm not a "mere child", so please don't patronise me.

b) So are you saying there are no Arabs that are suicide bombers, women oppressors or limb amputators? There are plenty. Some Arab states are living in the dark ages and you know that. The mistake Kilroy made was to not clearly define the fact that he didn't mean *ALL* Arabs.

c) I think a lot of people, and some of the press, are over reacting to his comments. It doesn't incite racial hatred in my opinion, it just tells me things I already knew.

I think pensioner's crumpet Kilroy was trying to come up with a controversial column for the paper. Unfortunately for him, it was a nasty racist diatribe published at the worst possible time.

Whoops, Kiljoy, it's backfired.

I've always found him a complete w*****, and am extremely surprised to find anyone will miss him or his appalling show. We should all be thankful his rubbish is off the air for good.

Poor Kilroy! You cant say anything these days without being branded somethingIST. There must be more words ending in IST than ever before!

Newspapers are so hypocritical - they write about all this stuff thats going on in such countries and then they go on and on about someone who writes about how awful it is but as a blatent opinion rather than a 'subtle' media-in-general one.

Of course hes not referring to every single arab general member of the public and when i read this article this was blatently clear to me he was referring to the minority - the rulers/leaders/authorities of the arab states. Am i the only one who thought this straightaway?Am I the unique one? Is everyone else unable to see this or is this just what the world has come to? Everyone looking for something to moan about cos its not politically correct. Everyone looking for one drop of controversy from something thats not particularly controversial at all. When it was originally written it was probably just a round up of what had been said in the papers that week.

Just as if someone had said in an article, for example, "America just bomb everyone without thinking" i wouldnt automatically picture millions of members of the general american public, in america and other places where they have emigrated to, with home made bombs in their attics, which they fly out over particular chosen countries they have a grudge upon, once a month with their family and friends and evilly cackle at the devastation they have caused- i picture the autorities - those in charge of the country making these mistakes.

I find it funny people comparing what he did to hitler - quite offensive if i were to be one of those people who seeks out the tiniest drop of offence from anything - as a human being that anyone would think a human would be so dumb to suddenly think that arab looking guy walking down the street oppresses women, amputates limbs etc. based on one mans opinion. I dont think this. I know many people of many different races and treat them all as they come - based on their personality not their backgrounds. If an arab was nasty to me id be nasty back! - same with a Scottish, Irish, Portuguese etc person.

Get over it i say! Its a newspaper article! It doesnt incite racial hatred and if racial hatred is present it was present long before this article! Lets not exaggerate its only making you look silly.

People have taken it the wrong way and it annoys me as does the fact that the BBC have taken the show off air. EXCUSE ME but WE pay for that show! did the public ask for it to be taken off air? I certainly didnt! It makes a change from watching the teenage mums wanting DNA tests on Trisha (oh sorry im making a generalisation shoot me.)

They did the same with Angus deayton. A lot of people liked him on Have I Got News For You and they took him off cos it was in the paper that he'd taken cocaine and had an affair. Well i can make up my own mind on whether i find the fact he took drugs an impairment to his ability to present a quiz show thankyou very much.

Originally posted by Hodge
I was under the impression that the version printed last year was heavily toned down by the editor(s?) of the paper, and that the original version was submitted by his secretary by mistake last week, instead of the column he intended to publish? For some reason however, it bypassed the editors this time.

Regardless, I think the comments were, on the whole, uninformed and quite reprehensible.

If Townsend, who has been running the paper since May 2001, had been concerned that his paper is ignored by journalists - none of whom noticed that Kilroy-Silk's article first appeared last April (and only reappeared nine days ago because of an administrative screw-up) - he need worry no longer. For a while, anyway.

=edit=
The two articles were substantially identical.

Kittykat has a strong point - the racist tag can be used like the communist tag was in 'past times' to vilify and persecute public personae.

There's a lot of people who would like to beat Kilroy round the head for being an obnoxious (last time I watched) ringleader for a circus of opinions. This is the perfect tool. Sorry but that is what writing in the newspapers and being on TV is all about - public glare, public praise, opprobrium, pity, sympathy,remembrance. Sometimes in that order. I'm not apologisiing for it - the man is an idiot, and he has just proved it to virtually the entire country.

The sweet irony is (for him at least) that now he will become a default speaker for any xenophobic vox pop with *heart* as and when required by the makers of television programmes.

And I doubt they will drop his column, although the stunt is unlikely to garner many more readers for this bloated newspaper.

I genuinely believe he is an idiot because

a)his comments are not only ill-judged, i.e. overinflammatory - beyond the remit of a newspaper -

and b)
He employs a secretary that sends the same 'ill judged' article to a newspaper twice just in case they didn't react the first time. If it was a trick (unlikely) it rather backfired on the secretary.


He appears to have made no effort at all to investigate, let alone understand, another diffuse and monotheistic culture that stems for quite different traditions (and morals and ethics and twee rules of social behaviour (all the same thing)).

Originally posted by kittykat
Newspapers are so hypocritical - they write about all this stuff thats going on in such countries and then they go on and on about someone who writes about how awful it is but as a blatent opinion rather than a 'subtle' media-in-general one.
You have a point there, but in this particular case wasn't it the Commission for Racial Equality who took this up, not the newspapers (though doubtless they're all on the bandwagon now)?

Originally posted by kittykat
Of course hes not referring to every single arab general member of the public and when i read this article this was blatently clear to me he was referring to the minority - the rulers/leaders/authorities of the arab states. Am i the only one who thought this straightaway?Am I the unique one?
He may have only been referring to the leadership, but he didn't exactly go out of his way to make this distinction, and the starting statement "We owe Arabs nothing" is clearly designed to be controversial.

Originally posted by kittykat
I find it funny people comparing what he did to hitler - quite offensive if i were to be one of those people who seeks out the tiniest drop of offence from anything
It was RKS himself who brought up Hitler in his article.

Originally posted by kittykat
They did the same with Angus deayton. A lot of people liked him on Have I Got News For You and they took him off cos it was in the paper that he'd taken cocaine and had an affair.

I thought he was taken off because Paul Merton and Ian Hislop wouldn't stop dragging the issue up, and the show become unworkable?

Originally posted by t020
So are you saying there are no Arabs that are suicide bombers, women oppressors or limb amputators?

You find that most Arabs aren't those things; just as most non-Arabs aren't either. However, you will agree that there are Arab and non-Arab extremists who do these things. Sadly your selective amnesia only extends to the sins of those who support / share your interests.

Originally posted by t020
I think a lot of people, and some of the press, are over reacting to his comments. It doesn't incite racial hatred in my opinion, it just tells me things I already knew.

Therefore Kilroys comments satisfy the prejudices inherent in the childish fantasy world that is your reality. Which is what I already knew.

Originally posted by Sidla
I hadn't heard that, where did you read it?

"...Complicating matters was the fact that this column was an inadvertent repeat of one published last April. And clouding things even further was the fact that the earlier column referred to "Arab countries", while the 2004 version used the ethnic term "Arabs".

Last night, in early editions of the Sunday Express, Kilroy said his secretary sent the wrong email attachment, and he insisted that his remarks had not caused offence when they were first published in April last year..."

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/media/story.jsp?story=480094

That martin_s seems like a decent bloke

I reckon I agree with practically every word he writes

Just sharing that, us lefty do-gooders have to stick together

So you can write what you like about Americans, and write what you like about the French, but when it comes to Islamic countries you can't go there because it's racist.

If I had my way all negative propaganda would be banned and everyone would live in blissful ignorance. I reckon that would be the only way to get rid of racism.

- poached off the BBC's "Have your say" website

What on earth is with this misconception of "Freedom of Speech" anyway?! For anyone else who used this argument, help me with a little experiment: Get up from your desk, walk in to your Manager's office, and then proceed to fire off a volley of sexually explicit insults. FREE SPEECH means you were free to say them, but RESPONSIBILITY OF YOUR ACTIONS means you'll probably be reading the rest of this article from home.
Michael, Cambridge, UK

"Free Speech" does not entitle one to abuse the privilege afforded to him by his employer. The BBC has obligations to its audience and to its funders and is well within its right to exercise control over content. If one of its presenters runs a risk of embarrassing the Beeb, then by all means, take him off the air until he makes appropriate assurances. Note that my comments have *nothing* to do with what he said; the bottom line is that he is an employee in a very privileged position.
Keith Hanlan, Ottawa, Canada

Kilroy had the right to express his views in his organ of choice - The Sunday Express - and the BBC has the right to disassociate itself from such ill thought out generalisations by removing him from its schedules.
Carl, UK

I agree with Sidla.... the do gooder lefty's in the house wouldn't be so quick to jump to the defence of poor old Americans if they were ALL being called arrogant, zionists with no other aim than to rule the world with thier 'I am superior attitude'.

They also wouldn't jump to their defence if they all were being called barbaric by administering the death penalty freely. Cos lets face it... a number of American's like the idea of the death penalty.

These are all statements I have read on websites such as this one in the past, all of the sites with their own do gooder lefties and not ONE jumped to the defence of the poor American (who is actually nice, welcoming and friendly).

However when it comes to an islamic state... all hell breaks loose. It's inciting racism just by quoting FACTS people. These things happen. Not by all but by some. Same as Americans!

Double Standards is a bad thing!

I would defend the inhabitants of the USA against any racist slurs

Please don't use this 'do goody leftie' term, it bugs the crap out of me.

Originally posted by Belle
I would defend the inhabitants of the USA against any racist slurs
So if Kilroy had entitled his article "We owe Americans nothing", and it was all about how Americans are overweight, trigger-happy and lovers of the death penalty, do you think there would be the same public out-cry?

I cant of course speak on behalf of the rest of the public, but I would have been causing a fuss yes

If he had I doubt we'd be having this discussion.

Sorry sidla, I only used the leftie term cos it's on Belle user ID.

However I agree, if Kilroy had have said these statements... I too doubt this conversation would have taken place!

Ignore the first paragraph, but this is a good article on free speech (http://otherstream.com/rants/freespeech.html)

When are we going to see a do-badder rightie jump to the defence of a do-gooder leftie to be able to say what they feel is right?

Whenever anyone voices an opinion with which one of these do-badders disagrees there is an immediate outcry of double standards. These rants are usually along the lines of you wouldn't have said this if it were about something else. How do you know? Are people not allowed to have opinions about issues? Do they need to preface their arguments with I do/do not agree with whatever so-and-so said but I would have agreed/not agreed whether it was said about brussel sprouts or marmite?

These are opinions, people, and we should all allow others the right to voice them without applying labels.

Originally posted by max
Whenever anyone voices an opinion with which one of these do-badders disagrees there is an immediate outcry of double standards. These rants are usually along the lines of you wouldn't have said this if it were about something else. How do you know? Are people not allowed to have opinions about issues? Do they need to preface their arguments with I do/do not agree with whatever so-and-so said but I would have agreed/not agreed whether it was said about brussel sprouts or marmite?
I stand by my original comment that none of this would have been brought up if Kilroy's rant was about Americans. I'm not excusing it, I have no respect for Kilroy's article, and I would have just as little respect for it if it was about America. But I do believe there is double standards at play, I very much doubt any of this would have been brought up if Kilroy was criticising America, France or even Europe.

Originally posted by max
When are we going to see a do-badder rightie jump to the defence of a do-gooder leftie to be able to say what they feel is right?

Whenever anyone voices an opinion with which one of these do-badders disagrees there is an immediate outcry of double standards. These rants are usually along the lines of you wouldn't have said this if it were about something else. How do you know? Are people not allowed to have opinions about issues? Do they need to preface their arguments with I do/do not agree with whatever so-and-so said but I would have agreed/not agreed whether it was said about brussel sprouts or marmite?

These are opinions, people, and we should all allow others the right to voice them without applying labels.
Do badder righties.... ha.
Why would we jump to thee defence of people who offer double standards? If you feel justification in your doubls standards by posting the quoted passage then fine.

Fact is Kilroy wasn't meaning ALL Arabs, this he has said in an interview. Fact it could have been worded better, and he apologised for HIS mistake. However he stands by his comments directed at the regimes and those who follow the regimes.
Fact if Kilroy HAD said that he meant ALL Arabs I would be the first to say he was inciting racism with his article... however this is false and people who call him disgusting and arrogant and that he should be taken off air even after he has admited his mistake are t he ones who should be silenced and apologetic.

Fact and you can say otherwise till you're blue in the face... cos we both now this next portion is true... lord knows there have been plenty of oportunities to for the Lefties (sorry Sidla) to back up the States when they (including all Americans) have been put down. But this has never happened.

But as soon as an islamic state come under fire....... OMG Racists, Biggots you evil right wingers.
That my friends IS double standards!

Where are the topics slagging off all Americans?

Mike - I have looked and looked and looked

I have searched through hours of Iraq debate threads, but even those tend to be restricted to Bush criticism

I cant find any "All Americans are very bad" stuff, so I cant prove that I would rush to their defence

I did find my description of my lovely holiday in Florida, but that didnt help much because nobody called me on it.

I am not able to defend myself against double standards criticism, except to say that I wasnt hitherto aware of it

Perhaps those in favour of free speech, as long as it is something they agree with and not something they dont like, will post something to give us the chance to react to?

Well when it next happens and/or it's in the papers I'll remind you ALL of this thread!:thumbsup:

Originally posted by Abdul

Therefore Kilroys comments satisfy the prejudices inherent in the childish fantasy world that is your reality. Which is what I already knew.

Sorry, didn't realise that by already knowing that some Arabs are suicide bombers, women oppressors, etc., that I was living in a fantasy world. FACT: the REALITY is that many Arab states oppress women and there are many suicide bombings committed by Arabs. That IS reality, not fantasy, so don't dellude yourself just because you happen to be an Arab yourself.

Furthermore, during WW1 and WW2, our enemies were often referred to simply as "the Germans". There was no public outcry that such a comment could implicate *ALL* Germans; from its army to its civilians. People had enough common sense to realise the term referred to the Nazis. By the same token, the use of the term "Arabs" in this article is, to anyone with an ounze of common sense, referring to Arab terrorists and dictatorial regimes. Even today, on history programmes and articles, it often states "During the war, the Germans bombed......." , but there is no outcry then because they aren't muslim and so we don't all have to tread on politically correct egg shells around them. Instead, we interpret the article the logical way. Why can't people apply the same logic to Kilroys article? Do they honestly think he would have actually MEANT *ALL* Arabs????? That would be like committing suicide these days, and Kilroy is a smarter man than that. Applying a bit of common sense to the article instead of a P.C. microscope, all he has actually said is that there are Arab regimes who oppress women and amputate limbs, and there are Arabs out there who commit suicide bombings. We already knew that, so why the fuss?

Originally posted by t020
Furthermore, during WW1 and WW2, our enemies were often referred to simply as "the Germans". There was no public outcry that such a comment could implicate *ALL* Germans;
Thats because 'such a comment' did not only implicate *ALL* Germans, but it was painfully clear that if not all then at least the vast majority of Germans were bombing the crap out of Europe. Or supporting the military machine that did so. So the Allies bombed the crap out of not only the German Military, but German civilians too - and the German military bombed the Crap out of European Civilians.
.... People had enough common sense to realise the term referred to the Nazis.If the term referred to Nazis, why wasn't the term 'Nazi' used instead? Because it has a different meaning. By the same token, the use of the term "Arabs" in this article is, to anyone with an ounze of common sense, referring to Arab terrorists and dictatorial regimes. Ounzes aside, it's very simple t020. Germans means everyone who is a citizen of Germany. This was equally true during WWII.

Arabs on the other hand, refers to people who inhabit a slice of land from north Africa to eastern Iraq, with multiple nationalities and very different cultures and even interpretations of Islam, having in common one language, more or less.

The term Arabic is functionally homologous with Caucasian or Hispanic or even Slavic.

At a push, Arab can simply mean someone who speaks Arabic, as most, if not all Arabs, do (almost by definition).

Even today, on history programmes and articles, it often states "During the war, the Germans bombed......." , but there is no outcry then because they aren't Muslim and so we don't all have to tread on politically correct egg shells around them.


If you can consider the context of two nation states between whom exists a formal state of war, it is perfectly logical and reasonable to refer to two sides by their names.

A state of war existed between Britain and Germany. That is why there is no outcry.

If Kilroy Silk had written an article in 1942 and said "we owe the Germans nothing" he would probably been applauded, because at that point he would have been absolutely correct, as this country would have been indulging in total war with "the Germans".


Instead, we interpret the article the logical way. Why can't people apply the same logic to Kilroy's article? Do they honestly think he would have actually MEANT *ALL* Arabs????? That would be like committing suicide these days, and Kilroy is a smarter man than that.
I think you rather hit the nail on the head there. Kilroy has adeptly demonstrated that he is emphatically not smarter than that.

Let us look at this paragraph of his article, for example.

By Robert Kilroy Silk
We're told that the Arabs loathe us. Really? For liberating the Iraqis? For subsidising the lifestyles of people in Egypt and Jordan, to name but two, for giving them vast amounts of aid? For providing them with science, medicine, technology and all the other benefits of the West? They should go down on their knees and thank God for the munificence of the United States. What do they think we feel about them? That we adore them for the way they murdered more than 3,000 civilians on September 11 and then (they)danced in the hot, dusty streets to celebrate the murders?

I've colour coded and highlighted that quote to make this straightforward linguistic analysis a little more accessible. This is simple grammar really, its just that talking about how we relate to it at the same time can get confusing, but I believe it is a point worth making.

In the first clause of the first sentence (bright red) Kilroy uses the passive verb ('we're told') to avoid revealing who has actually told us that the Arabs loathe us. You may wish to speculate why he does not want to reveal that. Perhaps he doesn't know.

In the second clause he defines a relationship - between us and the Arabs. They ('the Arabs') are the subject, 'loathe' is the verb and we are the object ('us'). Now this is the point at which you begin to decide what he means by 'the Arabs'

In the second sentence (dark red) he defines who he means by 'us' and 'them'. We ('us') give them ('the Arabs') the benefits of the west. Let's ignore the stupidity of the remark (The west gave Arabs science? Ha!) and concentrate on his clarification.

Firstly 'We' means the Soldiers that liberated Iraq.

Then 'We' suddenly becomes anyone who has contributed financially to Egypt and Jordan.

Then 'We' shifts again, and not just to mean the few, somnambulent readers of the Sunday times, but the whole 'western world' (the only thing that can give 'the benefits of the west'

And 'They' are clearly all Arabs, unless he specifically means that the western world has provided all these wonderful benefits only for Arabic Terrorists. If he believes that then he is beyond stupid, he is irredeemably delusional.

In the next, charming, sentence (in blue), he inverts the subject and object again. 'They' become the subject, and the object neatly metamorphoses into only the United States, excluding the remainder of the"western world". His choice of verb 'kneel' rather, than say 'thank' or 'bless' is also revealing if you like stylistic analysis (but thats another can of worms)

His closing remarks keep the subject and object in place, but the meaning seems to shift again. 'They' suddenly become the suicidal mass murderers that turned airliners into missiles, and 'We' become the massed ranks of the world, shocked and stunned beyond belief.

Then 'They' metamorphose again, into the macho dunderheads who danced for the news cameras in a handful of cities around the world, predominantly Muslim, not Arabic states.

That last sentence is only highlighted because it reveals Kilroy as a derivative and unimaginative writer for using such a tired cliche.

Applying a bit of common sense to the article instead of a P.C. microscope, all he has actually said is that there are Arab regimes who oppress women and amputate limbs, and there are Arabs out there who commit suicide bombings. We already knew that, so why the fuss?

By applying a little common sense and actually reading the article carefully, you will see that even Kilroy doesn't know what he is talking about.

If he's confused, then how the hell do we know what he means?

If this is racism, then it is due to sloppy thinking and some really egregious category errors, rather than malevolence.

Hence my opinion that the man is an idiot.

And a fool for not realising the outcome of his idiocy.

In the final analysis its just an 'us' and 'them' article, designed to provoke comment and newspaper sales. And despite being an idiot, I suspect now that it will work to his advantage. Plus ca change eh?

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
Thats because 'such a comment' did not only implicate *ALL* Germans, but it was painfully clear that if not all then at least the vast majority of Germans were bombing the crap out of Europe. Or supporting the military machine that did so.

It was also "painfully clear" that Kilroy meant terrorist Arabs and dictatorial regimes, not all Arabs. Also. many Germans were opposed to the Nazis so by suggesting that "if not all then at least the vast majority of Germans were bombing the crap out of Europe. Or supporting the military machine that did so." is doing exactly what Kilroy may have been interpreted to have done - implicated an entire nation/race of people in an evil regime.

PS. Thanks for the patronising colour coded quote - but I have been able to read since I was 4 ; I didn't need colour coded words then and I certainly don't now. I bet that took you ages!

Originally posted by t020
It was also "painfully clear" that Kilroy meant terrorist Arabs and dictatorial regimes, not all Arabs. Also. many Germans were opposed to the Nazis so by suggesting that "if not all then at least the vast majority of Germans were bombing the crap out of Europe. Or supporting the military machine that did so." is doing exactly what Kilroy may have been interpreted to have done - implicated an entire nation/race of people in an evil regime.

What fun!

...Or supporting the military machine that did so.
Why do you think the allies bombed 'civilian' targets such as power stations, steelworks, dams and cities? Who worked in all these facilities? Germans. That is the meaning of Total War as practiced in the latter stages of WWII. Britons vs Germans.Allies vs Axis. No 'goodwill offensives' as practiced in the Iraqi desert here.

To use 'Germans' in this context is sufficiently accurate. I feel it goes without saying that the millions of Jews, who also happened to be Germans, did not support the military machine...

PS. Thanks for the patronising colour coded quote -

always a pleasure :)

but I have been able to read since I was 4
Ah, but when will you begin to understand?
I didn't need colour coded words then and I certainly don't now. You'll notice, if you look really carefully, that the it's not so much the words as the sentences and structure that is color coded
I bet that took you ages!
Longer than if I hadn't, certainly, but I feel it lends a little clarity perhaps.

I'm sorry that my attempted deconstruction of a small part of Kilroys article eluded you. I will try to be more succinct and explicit in future if you agree to actually try and understand what it is that you are so cleverly reading. :)

For the really really digested read:

"Kilroy uses the term 'arab' and 'arabs' (and 'they' and 'them) in his post very flexibly, meaning one thing and then another, rarely actually coinciding with the common meaning of the term. Equally his contextual definitions of 'we' and 'us' drift around like dandelion seeds.

The upshot of all this lazy writing and sloppy thinking, is an article that is
a) offensive to anyone who takes the meaning of 'arab' as 'all arabs, everywhere' and

b) "good sound common sense" if you take the meaning of the word 'arab' as "terrorists", or in GWB's parlance, "the enemy"

The net effect of this is to provoke a big row that will reflect badly on you in this political climate, and to end up guilty of boosting the cultural capital of the 'all arabs are bad' axiom whether you intended to or not.

Like I said, he's an idiot."

Does that manage to fit inside your gnatlike concentration span? :D
[edited for extra clarity, just in case]

maybe we should ban quotes for a week or so might keep a few off here posting lol:D

There was a case in the national press about a Vicar who made anti American comments :









Britain



February 23, 2002

US threat to peace, says vicar
By Emma Hartley



A VICAR is being investigated by the police after writing an article in his parish magazine that denounced the US President as more of a threat to peace than terrorism.
The Rev Nigel Cooper, 48, a Church of England clergyman at St Mary’s and All Saints in Rivenhall, Essex, was reported by a parishioner, apparently for inciting racial hatred against Americans. The magazine has a circulation of about 500 copies.



The vicar’s complaints against the US involved its response to September 11. He criticised conditions in which Taleban prisoners were kept in Guantanamo Bay, capitalism generally, and Christian fundamentalism in the US. He wrote of Americans: “They have not been fighting for civilisation but for empire, power and the American way of life: luxury in a world of poverty.”

A police spokesman said: “I can confirm that a complaint has been received concerning the contents of an article in the February issue of the Rivenhall parish magazine. This complaint is currently being investigated.






Times Story (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-216331,00.html)

(Times Online Feb 23rd 2002)




Up the Rector
An Essex Vicar who was under investigation by the police for an article about the September 11th attacks has had his case dropped. Rev. Nigel Cooper in his monthly letter to parishioners expressed his opinion that the 3000 people that died in the Twin Towers weren’t entirely innocent. Both towers were full of people working for the banks that fund the IMF, who in turn cause 30,000 deaths a day in the southern hemisphere. He also thought Bush was a greater threat to peace than terrorism, and that the US response was more to do with fighting for an empire than for civilisation. One reader took offence to the article and contacted the thought police who obviously couldn’t find anything wrong with the comments, and have discontinued their investigations.



Schnews (http://www.schnews.org.uk/archive/news352.htm)

Schnews 3rd may 2002

It wasn't because they couldn't find anything wrong with what he said. They didn't proceed because had the Rev Cooper used the term the American Establishment he would not have been legally been committing the offence of inciting racial hatred.

I expect since KS's article was more carefully worded the same will be the same for him but it'll be interesting to see what happens I guess.

Oddly enough the people who complained about the Rev Cooper were American :)

Poor little priest, another man victimised for speaking his mind and telling the truth.

The fact is that the most dangerous man in the world is good old George Dubyah, a man who was never elected to office and continues the long line of right-wing christian loonies to sit in the Oval Office. How long will the rest of the world tolerate the US bullying other nations and using the suffering of innocents as an excuse to futher its own economic ends?

The one thing that these people fear in reality is the truth. Stand up and be counted, speak your mind and take the consequences. Because if we don't, then loud-mouted bigots like the man who's written comments started this thread will be the only voice that gets heard as the world goes down the pan and the Americans feel safe and secure in the knowledge that they can invade any country who's natural resources they feel they need on the premis of war against terrorism.

Originally posted by Carmine
and the Americans feel safe and secure in the knowledge that they can invade any country who's natural resources they feel they need on the premis of war against terrorism.
Que Mike, Belle and Max for defence against the Yanks please?

Defense against the Yanks? What, are we under attack or something? ;)

Can we agree that we are not going to say "The Americans"

in the same way that we object to "The Arabs" when making political comments about the acts of their leaders or establishments

How about if we agree that

We can say "the Republicans" if referring to party policy

or "the President/Bush/Dubya/very very rude word" if referring to the individual

or "the army/military" or whatever or whichever bit of the population you mean

but not "the Americans" - that suggests that umpteen million people are of one mind

Originally posted by DaBouncer
Que Mike, Belle and Max for defence against the Yanks please?

Hola, Manuel.

As Mike has said I don't think we need defending against The Americans. However, I do agree with Belle that when posting we should beware of tarring a whole continent's inhabitants. 'The Americans' covers the populations of both North and South America and I think the ones who feel they can invade any country are politicians in cahoots with the CEOs of armaments manufacturers and petroleum producers.

The whole issue of broad stroke condemnation of a race/creed/ethnic grouping has been covered at length in various threads and, imo, this applies to the use of the term Americans also.

Agreed Belle, thank you for your valued contribution.

I stand corrected on the double standards issue with you.:thumbsup:

I second Belle's and Max's comments above.

There are large numbers of Americans who hate their own government (let's face it, Dubya blagged his way into power for starters), so are unlikely to support their military tactics.

My definition of the Americans should have been more clearly defined as the US Government, the US Military and the Coporate Lobbyists who pull the strings of the supposed folks in charge.

There are tolerant US citizens, but of course there are beligerant morons also. I recall once mentioning the fact to a guy from the US in a chatroom that I was worried by the tactics and lies that the current Bush administration employs in that it seems to believe that the largest army in the world is an automatic mandate to police the globe. The guy immediatly responded by asking the rest of the room if they were aware of "what this guy is saying about us." The room then turned hostile, which shocked me as it was a pagan chatroom (a group who like to think of themselves as tolerant and open-minded on the whole). The fact that the guy saw a simple criticism of his government as a personal insult worries me, especially when he probably had nothing to do with the actual democratic process as 60% of the US electorate stayed at home on poll night!

Originally posted by Carmine
My definition of the Americans should have been more clearly defined as the US Government, the US Military and the Coporate Lobbyists who pull the strings of the supposed folks in charge.


You committed a bit of a Kilroy. :D

Do I get suspended from the forum pending an investigation?

Originally posted by Carmine
Poor little priest, another man victimised for speaking his mind and telling the truth.

The fact is that the most dangerous man in the world is good old George Dubyah, a man who was never elected to office and continues the long line of right-wing christian loonies to sit in the Oval Office. How long will the rest of the world tolerate the US bullying other nations and using the suffering of innocents as an excuse to futher its own economic ends?



I imagine the world will tolerate America as long as it keeps spending more than any other nation on earth on foreign aid!!!

The worst thing that could happen for "The Arabs" is that the US finds a new fuel on the moon in 2015 or something.....then the oil sheiks etc will all be screwed, because the USA won't want the trouble of dealing with the middle east....the revealing thing is..for the ordinary chap living in Saudi (just an example)...he will still be as poor then, as he is today!

The reason why the West is so hated by the middle east in general is the fact that all the money being pumped into the region goes to a few oil sheiks, and the average man gets sod all. The Arab establishment then conveniently blames the Jews and the West for keeping the masses poor!....Great!! I suppose, the fact there's naff all education there keeps most people "dumned down" so they can't see what's going on....oh and also, there is a lot less "freedom of Speech" over there. In Egypt (Supposedly one of the more "westernised/civilised?" arab countries) if you dare to take to the street shouting anti government slogans, you disappear in the back of a police van!!.....No one is allowed to question the status quo...that Arab states are all rosey...and it is the west that are the "murderers". Many Arab countries have enough wealth to sort themselves out, but they are too happy burning our flags instead of fighting for equal opportunity!!! (And you can't blame the US for every dictator in the Middle East)

It angers me so much that we spend so much time arguing among ourselves, saying who is and isn't wrong,when we should be creating our own national identity. Unfortunately there seems to some among us who would rather gradually break down our beliefs and moral values when we'd be much better making our country strong! I for one won't be shouted down by those who accuse me of being racist because I think our immigration policy has been tits up for years and needs halting, and then re-building. Looking around at university.....the vitriol that extends towards the USA is unreal, and for me to say something like I just did, i would be in all sorts of bother, being branded a bigot, racist, and "Right Wing"...as if it something to be ashamed of!

Mr Silk was a muppet for writing that article and not expecting to get people angry and call him all sorts of nasty things like Racist. Beacuse our society is rotten to the core with political "over" correctness. If he has to bare the consequences for what he said, then fair enough....he should have known he'd take some flak. But that doesn't detract from the basic nuts and bolts of his message. And his message, although worded badly, is fundamentally correct.

Rich

Mr Silk was a muppet for writing that article and not expecting to get people angry and call him all sorts of nasty things like Racist. Beacuse our society is rotten to the core with political "over" correctness. If he has to bare the consequences for what he said, then fair enough....he should have known he'd take some flak. But that doesn't detract from the basic nuts and bolts of his message. And his message, although worded badly, is fundamentally correct

He's either broken the law or he hasn't. It's not a matter of being politically correct.

Thanks for your comments guitarlad.

I agree it would be better if oil was found on the moon, for the reasons you outline above. But it won't happen so the US and Britain will keep an occupying force over there for many years yet (Jack Straw admitted this a few days ago).

Yes, there is a lot of flag burning over there, but as mentioned previously on this thread, the anger is directed at the governments, not Western civilians, especially as US governments have directly or indirectly contributed to many of the conflicts there.

The US did supply weapons to both Iran and Iraq during their war ("It's a pity both of them can't lose" as one American official said), and supported the UN sanctions that killed over 500,000 Iraqi children between the two Gulf wars. You may remember when Clinton got caught with his pants down, his response was to launch a cruse missile strike on a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan. The situation over there isn't helped by the Bush Administration repeatedly threatening to bomb / invade any country that attempts to show even a glimmer of autonomy.

I agree there are bad governments over in the Middle East, I just wonder why 'regime change' is always declared on the countries whose occupation is vital to the interest of western governments (isn't Afghanistan the route for a strategically important oil pipeline from the Caspian sea or something?).

I expect a couple of cruise missiles to hit either Tehran and Damascus just before the US Presidential Elections in November. No troops to go in there just yet (the US don't want another Vietnam before the votes are cast) but I'm sure the US will send a 'preview' of what we can expect over the next four years. :rolleyes:

Kilroys comments were just a taster of we can expect from the right-wing propaganda machine, whose big business interests are at stake here. The Telegraph is owned by Conrad Black, chair of the Hollinger Group. Richard Perle, one of the key war mongers in the American administration is involved in Hollinger Digital.

You may already be aware of the US government being run by oil millionaires. Michael Moore mentions this in his book Stupid White Men, which is available online here (http://users.pandora.be/ccMarianne/mmwhitemen.pdf) and here (http://users.wpi.edu/~jacoby/Moore,Michael-StupidWhiteMen.pdf)

Kilroy has resigned. I do hope all the do gooders are happy now.

Originally posted by Abdul
The Telegraph is owned by Conrad Black, chair of the Hollinger Group. Richard Perle, one of the key war mongers in the American administration is involved in Hollinger Digital.
I wouldn't worry about Conrad too much - he's got more domestic issues to worry about. Did you not hear about the bonus thing and the fact Hollinger was/is up for sale.

A minor point but I thought you might be interested :)

Originally posted by guitarlad
The worst thing that could happen for "The Arabs" is that the US finds a new fuel on the moon in 2015 or something.....then the oil sheiks etc will all be screwed, because the USA won't want the trouble of dealing with the middle east....the revealing thing is..for the ordinary chap living in Saudi (just an example)...he will still be as poor then, as he is today!


There are existing alternative technolgy in place but no one is doing much about it. I think some backhanders are in play with the car industry to delay such technology purely for tax reasons for oil.

Originally posted by John
There are existing alternative technolgy in place but no one is doing much about it. I think some backhanders are in play with the car industry to delay such technology purely for tax reasons for oil.

Rubbish. The government could quite as easily tax other sources of energy, such as hydrogen, in the same way petrol is taxed now. If there are any backhanders, it is the fuel companies paying them to delay research/development of alternative sources of fuel.

so what has this all got to do with kilroy again?

Originally posted by Geoff
I wouldn't worry about Conrad too much - he's got more domestic issues to worry about. Did you not hear about the bonus thing and the fact Hollinger was/is up for sale.



Thank you Geoff. I was aware of this but surprisingly enough, I only ever read about on the Guardian website! It is alleged Lord Black took unauthorised payments from his group of companies, amounting to tens of millions of dollars.

Black under boardroom pressure to quit (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,3604,1120786,00.html)

Secret fee crisis for Telegraph boss (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1086757,00.html)

There are plenty more articles on this subject on the Guradian website. Just do a search for Lord Black!

If Hollinger is up for sale, I'll give £50 tops!

Originally posted by t020
Kilroy has resigned. I do hope all the do gooders are happy now.


Oh dear :(

And Tony Blair had done ever so much to lower unemployment in this country...

Originally posted by t020
Rubbish. The government could quite as easily tax other sources of energy, such as hydrogen, in the same way petrol is taxed now. If there are any backhanders, it is the fuel companies paying them to delay research/development of alternative sources of fuel.

I agree with t020 here. I heard a story many years ago about an engineer who developed an efficient, powerful car that ran on water, or something else simple.

The oil companies response was to pay him a lot of cash to end the project!

Originally posted by Andy78
so what has this all got to do with kilroy again?

Please see my paragraph in a previous post:

"Kilroys comments were just a taster of we can expect from the right-wing propaganda machine, whose big business interests are at stake here. The Telegraph is owned by Conrad Black, chair of the Hollinger Group. Richard Perle, one of the key war mongers in the American administration is involved in Hollinger Digital."

Originally posted by t020
Kilroy has resigned. I do hope all the do gooders are happy now.
A shame that his contract wasn't terminated before he had the chance to resign. His conduct is intolerable.

Surely nobody HAS denied Kilroy's freedom of speech

He got what he wanted into the papers and as far as I know continues with his column.

He wrote exactly what he wanted and it was printed, and he got paid for it.

That is one BIG freedom if you ask me.

However the BBC also have a right, a right not to let people with views they dont agree with, broadcast on their channel five mornings a week if they dont want him to

If he moves to channel 5 as the speculation suggests it will prove even further that no-one has gagged him.

Some people clearly dont understand the facts

And we all have the freedom to criticise him for being a bigot :)

Try turning the telly off.

Originally posted by kittykat


People have taken it the wrong way and it annoys me as does the fact that the BBC have taken the show off air. EXCUSE ME but WE pay for that show! did the public ask for it to be taken off air? I certainly didnt! It makes a change from watching the teenage mums wanting DNA tests on Trisha (oh sorry im making a generalisation shoot me.)

Another sensible post from MichaelTravis

Although in my case, as a worker, I dont get the chance to turn Kilroy off all that often, only when I am on holiday

It is a shame really, I would turn it off more if I was around more

:thumbsup:

Let's lighten the mood here a little...

Has anyone tried the Kilroy Introduction Generator?

http://www.robertkilroysilk.com

Originally posted by Tony
And we all have the freedom to criticise him for being a bigot :)
I don't honestly believe he is a bigot, just an idiotic fool who can't write for toffee and misjudged the mood of the media sharktank.