Kilroy-Silk: What did the Arabs ever do for us?

[Orange]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3376633.stm

Apparently Kilroy, the highlight of any self-respecting student's morning routine, also moonlights as a borderline fascist.

Some choice quotes from his Sunday Express column include

"We're told the the Arabs loathe us. Really?... What do they think we feel about them? That we adore them for the way they murdered more than 3,000 civilians on 11 September and then danced in the hot, dusty streets to celebrate the murders?"

"They should go down on their kness and thank God for the munificence of the United States."

It seems extraordinary really, but I suspect there's far too many people in Britain who share his view

[madjock]

oh dear. bye bye kilroy

[GroovYF]

oh dear. Talk about generalising :/

In the Sunday Express piece, the former Labour MP referred to Arabs as "suicide bombers, limb-amputators, women repressors"

There's just no need for that

[Bugstomper]

limb amputators and women repressors isn't far off the mark though is it?

2 out of 3 ain't bad, not that i'm being fascious or anything (more like fascist!).

Getting bored with all this sort of stuff though, don't see the CRE ever clamping down on people saying "the west is ...", not that i'm condoning what kilroy has said or agree with it but i've simply stopped caring what anyone says about anything anymore... a very depressing day at work today

[MALLET]

"What did the Arabs ever do for us?"

would make an interesting sequel to the "what have the romans ever done for us" tv show.

kilroys a wanker anyway.

[Flossie]

Originally Posted by MALLET

"What did the Arabs ever do for us?"

mathematics
poetry
architeture
writing
civilization
money

and probably a whole lot else

[Bugstomper]

that arabs or islam? were the moors and the turks considered to be arabs? thought they were just muslims.

forgot medical advancement and scientific practice, pretty much all of western civilisation is based on muslim stuff but i didn't think the muslims that did it were considered arabs?

edit: just to add, these are questions not counter arguements, i don't really know anything about this era in history other than the brief overview i did at school about 15 years ago and the odd program i've seen on the history channel.

[Beef~]

kilroy wouldn't know his arse from his elbow if you handed it to him on a plate.

[Ventral]

Flossie is right, first Alphabet was in Arabic wasn't it?

And yeah, Kilroy is a utter...... <insert insult here, any will do as I'm sure he'll fit it>

[Bugstomper]

numerals we use are arabic too.

home now so a little more interested in the subject, i have to say i'm surprised that he'd say something like that, maybe taken out of context?

If he did and meant it in the way it's been reported then he has to go, if it was any other channel then i just wouldn't watch his show but as it's a bbc program we're all paying for his wages.

On the subject of arabs though, anyone got any opinions on why 3000 people die in america and they go on about it for months and even years later, 10,000 die in iran and it's barely reported except as a minor note. I know one's a terrorist and ones a natural attack but still..

I guess because more britons died on sept 11th and the fact it was an allie under attack warranted more coverage but i'm more inclined to think the sept 11th coverage was way over the top with the iran coverage just about right (a lot on the day and day after then minor updates).

[leady]

I suspect that the "quote" is very probably an utter misquote by the PC police if anyone has access to the original source.

Kilroy was great during the Iraqi war due to him consistently pointing out to "its for oil" people, that having a war to protect oil is actually logically very sound rather than a bad thing. :-)

[Beef~]

Originally Posted by Bugstomper

On the subject of arabs though, anyone got any opinions on why 3000 people die in america and they go on about it for months and even years later, 10,000 die in iran and it's barely reported except as a minor note. I know one's a terrorist and ones a natural attack but still..

I guess because more britons died on sept 11th and the fact it was an allie under attack warranted more coverage but i'm more inclined to think the sept 11th coverage was way over the top with the iran coverage just about right (a lot on the day and day after then minor updates).

Maybe i'm being cynical but i think its a bit naive to believe that 1 us/uk life is worth the same as the life of an iraqi or iranian. Same in israel and palestine. Lots of people die as a result of us/uk bombing? hardly reported. More people have died in iraq /afghanistan wars many times over that died on that one day.

[Ventral]

In war it's expected that people die. Hijacking planes full of people and flying them into buildings during "peace" time is unexpected. Hence the difference in coverage.

[Scrobbs]

Originally Posted by Beef~

Maybe i'm being cynical but i think its a bit naive to believe that 1 us/uk life is worth the same as the life of an iraqi or iranian. Same in israel and palestine. Lots of people die as a result of us/uk bombing? hardly reported. More people have died in iraq /afghanistan wars many times over that died on that one day.

Have i read this right? do you think that a person's life from another nation is not worth the same as a life from UK/US?

[Bugstomper]

i think he means that as far as the press is concerned they're not as important, not that he personally believes they're not important.

I agree with what you're saying ventral but the earthquake wasn't expected either.

[funkeh]

kilroy@jobcentre.co.uk

[Lungboy]

The BBC have taken his show off air for now, until a full investigation has been carried out apparently.

[Nor]

Thank god, I hate that show, its the reason I sleep in so late so I miss it

[Lungboy]

Harry Hills pisstake is classic.

[Lungboy]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3383589.stm

[Sparky]

Originally Posted by Bugstomper

On the subject of arabs though, anyone got any opinions on why 3000 people die in america and they go on about it for months and even years later, 10,000 die in iran and it's barely reported except as a minor note. I know one's a terrorist and ones a natural attack but still..

I guess because more britons died on sept 11th and the fact it was an allie under attack warranted more coverage but i'm more inclined to think the sept 11th coverage was way over the top with the iran coverage just about right (a lot on the day and day after then minor updates).

There's quite a clear difference (btw - the reports I've read say the number of Bam deaths is at least 20,000 - and could be as many as 50,000).

If 10,000 die in an Earthquake - who are you going to blame? Whose fault is it? There is just no one to blame it on - shit happens unfortunately :-/

If 3,000 die in an attack - and it's done on purpose - of course there's going to be a bigger outrage.

You can't have public outrage about an earthquake - it's an natural disaster (unless perhaps you complain about the quality of the buildings?). If someone comes along and blows up a couple of your skyscrapers then it's pretty difficult *not* to have public outrage!


Also - American being a close ally - events there will get more coverage in the media (the Georgian coup was reported on the news like this :"England won the world cup, here's some people in a pub, here's a replay of the ball going over, more people celebrating, oh! and there's been a coup in Georgia - goodnight!").

I agree that American events for example get more media coverage, but if someone bombs a building - there will be an investigation.... if there's an earthquake - all you can do is mourn (and slowly plod through the process of trying to find survivors - and the two that there have been have been reported :-/).

So - I think I'm agreeing but saying you've picked a bad example :oP

[hagd016]

Proximity to the event, and good or bad relations with the countries involved clearly increase or decrease the effect of deaths/tragedies/attacks/wars on people. The further away, the less it affects you. At least that's how I see it - right or wrong.
The same thing happens with gender and age. Not sure where I read that recently (possibly another thread here), but its true. If I hear about a murder on the news, it affects me more if its a female than a male, and further still if its a child. This appears to be the way the media treats it too. It doesn't mean a man's life is worth less than a woman's, its just the way it affects you.

Another point on the earthquake - terrorism issue. An earthquake doesn't seem as likely to be a direct threat to us in Britain, as we're highly unlikely to have something that devestating happen to us here. Terrorist attacks are also incredibly unlikely to directly affect us either really (considering the IRA threat for most of my life resulted in two evacuations from work, one closed of city centre incident, and a delay at a train station - all for bomb threats), but they seem much more of a threat than an earthquake - so from personal 'risk assessment' view, terrorism is naturally more of interest to us.

[tinx]

Haha. I saw this, and was just about to mention that they prolly started civilization .. so..

Kilroy really is a prick.


And you refer to the differences between terrorism and an earthquake. Whats the difference between terrorism on American soil, and American "terrorism" against other countries.

When I say that, I refer to getting a cruise missle through your fuckin window.

OOPS COLLATERAL DAMAGE.

psssh..

[Hapless]

I think Kilroy is a bit of a bellend, his pathetic shows make me sick, but it does irritate me that a column written in the Sunday Express (right wing Tory rag) is deemed something that needs to be investigated by the CRE. Very few people would ever have read it anyway, and those that would have done are unlikely to take offence (apologies to any liberal minded SE readers).

I'm not defending him, but what Kilroy wrote is probably (because I don't read them) reflected in Islamic papers in the UK to a far more extreme degree.

[Pet Gerbil]

Originally Posted by funkeh

kilroy@jobcentre.co.uk

Hahahahaaaa.

Pure quality tbh

[[RaG]Gra]

Said on the news last night, that the column was a reprint of one he wrote for them 18 months ago, it also mentioned that the Express did not recieve a single complaint at that time.

[Orange]

It wasn't quite a reprint, I believe it was the original draft of the article was printed in April.

[Orange]

Here's the article:

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.

[Hapless]

If someone had said that about the French, no one would have batted an eyelid.

[Bugstomper]

hmm, well reading that he says "arab states" in which case i'd have to agree with most of it as it's pretty much true, whether it was appropriate to say it in that manner is a different story i guess, inciting hatred possibly.

A lot of inaccuracies in there though which is surprising for a reasonably intelligent man (wasn't he a lawyer before being a politician?), we can't really condemn arab countries for sitting by whilst saddam killed allsorts as we sold him the guns to do it etc..

this point though was the only one that i really agreed with:

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.

so true.