Just in case you get lost with all the new stuff on there, click the link provided.

It was always said 'the truth hurts' clearly it still does

The Truth Hurts - Go to the ARAB world and get FREE SPEECH - NOW THAT'S A LAUGH !!!!!

The above article by Lenin is just an abusive and rather juvenile attack on kilroy personally. It does not address any comments that Kilroy made himself. It's like something a schoolboy would produce using words like 'creep' and 'vomit'.

As far as I can see Kilroy was expressing his personal opinion. I notice few in the media has actually made any intelligent argument against what he has said, except to say they find his comments 'abhorrent'. Why? He did not endorse the harming of Arab people or cry for a Holy War, etc.
If he had then people would have reason to criticise him strongly.
I find it particulary sinister when the Lib Dems, so called liberals, are always the first to demand the police become involved as if they were the KGB.

Do we live in a democratic country anymore?

people vary, and that's what makes life interesting. with these variations come different traditions and laws.

suicide bombers! Suicide is prohibited by Islam, enogh said.

limb amputators! Islam like any other religion has its unique ways, the religion is based on prohibiting the crime from happening rather than punishing people who do it. there isn't enogh space to discuss the mentality of these laws here so my advise is "READ" about them.

women repressors! women are respected but in a different way to the west, people vary remember! women have the right to vote and be elected in 11 Arabic countries as far as I can remember, they dress what they like in 20 Arabic countries as far as I have seen, and work is a matter of personal liking and background. Personally, all women in my family work kill time only, and the money they earn is their own, the man pays the bills. So tell me what more does a western woman have that an Arab doesn't!

Throughout history Arabs has contributed to civilisation in the fields of medicine, maths, physics, astrology, arts, music...etc. When the west was living in the dark ages, the Arabic empire ruled like America is ruling now! READ about science, architecture, arts, and justice in the middle ages when Arabs ruled the world.

type Arabic civilisation in any search engine and READ Mr. Kilroy, it is easy to direct people's misunderstanding towards hate but it is very hard to wipe out a history that the whole west owe to much to!

Regardig Robert K0S's comments on the Arabs as a nation .. I think he was referring to certain Arab states ...ie Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States which DO SUPPORT Non Democratic and ridiculously outdated governments. Ruled by a Sheik, and living off the proceeds of their oil, these people have often forced up the price of oil to upset our economies. they ARE indeed DESPOTIC, and they treat their women as second class citizens, if not third class. So in effect Robert was correcxt. i have no bad feekings toward anyone, Arab or otherwise, but in htis case Mr Kilroy is correct in what he says.
Now then, I suffer racist abuse quite often from Asian youths in an area of trhe city where I live. These are mostly from Pakistani families, and I do not take it up with race relations. Why? because it is a waste of time, they are entitled to their opinions, and so am I and Mr Kilroy. so stop bleating, Mr Sacranie, and do something positive to get us who dislike your way of life to understand better hte reasons for it.
And I cannot have any syympathy for any religion which supports the killing of innicents. This aplies to the Israelis also. Beteen them, The Arab \islamic Jihad mob, and the USA, they have killed and maimed in the name of peace, justice, and God. So if God is sanctioning htese acts of war and terrorism, I am right to believe there is no god ... and it is time all these people grew up and realised we are in the 21st Century ... look at the sky. What do you see? Stars .. and looming disasters ... thanks to MAN and the incredible grees that we have for using the planet to linhe the povkets of a few..mostly Arabs and Jews by the way.

Kilroy Silk is only saying what most true brits think. What have the muslims contributed to this country. A few corner shops? On the other hand the Jews have integrated well into Britain and made sigificant contributions. And when the Arabs attack Israel they just get a good hiding and run away.

Kilroy made some stupid comments but much of what he said is based on fact.

He was wrong about Arabs contributing -they did especially in Science and Medicine.

BUT - even the BBC reported about ordinary Palestinians celebrating the deaths of 3,000 innocents on 9/11.

Arbas do treat their women like second class citizens, they do amputate limbs, many are ruled by corrupt depsots.

FREE OF SPEECH please - not POLITCAL CORRECTNESS gone mad.

Reinstate Kilroy now.

Even if you think his show is crap and he is smarmy - this is much BIGGER.

It affects us all - if he loses so do all of us who believe in freedom - BIG BROTHER is here.

Mark.

An Arab

I may disagree with some of your comments but you make some interesting and thought-provoking comments.

Totally agree with your comments on contributions to science and medicine.

Even our number system is based on Arabic.

Mark.

Thought we had and endorsed 'freedom of speech' in this country ? How many of the supposed 'outraged' Arab peoples home countries allow such freedoms then ????
Please read the article in its entirity and original length - it is almost a year old , has been re-hashed for re-publication and the offending sentance now taken out of context by the 'PC' brigade.
Talk about over-reaction by the BBC too !! Guilty til proven innocent seems to be the norm' these days........
The man is paid to court controversy in his 'chat-show' with both the subjects and his guests , but obviously not allowed to write it away from the BBC ?

Silk slammed for stating facts.

A group of arabs killed many innocent people - Fact

Many arabs were in the street celebrating this "act of Jihad" - Fact

Now he gets attacked for saying it!!

How much ammo do you want the national front to have???

Silk was slammed for stating opinions which you happen to agree with, not proven facts.

"A group of arabs killed many innocent people - Fact"
No, this has still not been proven. We have nothing even close to evidence yet proving that Arabs were responsible for 9/11. It may be proven true one day, but we still don't have the proof.

We do have lots of proof of how many innocent people the US has killed since WWII though, and it numbers in the millions.

"Many arabs were in the street celebrating this "act of Jihad" - Fact"
No, what we saw were pictures of Arabs celebrating... something. I too saw all those CNN clips of about 2 dozen Palestinians dancing and waving flags. There was no date on it, no translation of what they were saying. The fact this was shown (over and over again) on and after 9/11 made it look like they were celebrating it. But it's just as likely that it was library footage of them celebrating an attack on Israeli soldiers, or the anniversary of the Intifadah, or who knows what else.

There were also countless clips of Palestinians mourning the dead, holding vigils, paying homage, but these only they did not make it into the US or British mainstream media. Is it prudent to always believe blindly that a clip is even relevant to the subject matter?

"How much ammo do you want the national front to have???"
Ah, now we get down to your real motivation. Thanks for sharing.

"Iam certainly no racist. I dont think you realise that Iam up there with Martin Luther King in terms of bringing the races together. I fondle people of all colours, every day on my show. Arab, Black, Jew, Chinese, man, woman or beast, it makes no difference to me. If only everyone were as handsome, charming and understanding as myself, we would all fondle each other without even being invited, thus racism would disappear from the earth. A suicide bomber would soon see the error of his ways with a firm but gentle hand on the thigh, and a few words of advice from me. But as the adored champion of the under-fondled, I cannot be seen hugging terrorists, evil dictators, and others who dont watch my show. These barbarians get uptight just shaking hands, and actually oppose me fondling either themselves or their populace".

"No, this has still not been proven"

What???? How much evedence do you need to be considered proof? There is more than enough evidence to convict in any court of law. You are choosing to ignore this.

I am not saying that every Arab nation had a hand in it. What I am saying is that a small group of Extremists carried out this act. An act that I hope the vast majority of Arabs find deplorable.

"No, what we saw were pictures of Arabs celebrating"

This may be true. And I am sure that lots of the footage was not relevant and taken out of context. But the simple fact of the matter is that Many Arabs did celabrate this. Many of them publicly stated their satisfaction at this dreadful act.
This to me is far more deplorable than what Robert reported in his article.

I do agree that showing old library footage was wrong. Having said that, Have you ever read or watched any of the reporting from Al-Jazeera?

"Ah, now we get down to your real motivation"

You have no idea what my motivation is. A classic PC brigade trick. Twisting words to alter the meaning.

I am scared of the support that the NF are now getting. Recent events have stirred up more support. Just look at how succesful they have been in by-elections in places like Burnley.

The reason that I comment on the NF is that the PC society that we are living in is disliked by many. The NF are playing on this and winning votes. The more PC we are. The stronger the backlash against it.

I do not want the national front to get any stronger than they are.

Funnily enough, it seems that if you want to make a comment that is not to land you in jail in this country, best confine it to something that criticises colonial rule and gives the bleeding-hearts something to grab hold of!

At least Robert Kilroy-Silk had the courage to state his views, if some people agree then fair enough, if others don't agree then that is what democracy is about. It is unfortunate that comments are made which imply that those deemed to be representative of middle england aren't entitled to a view and that they are best served by being quiet and taking their cue from one of the minority groups that now wield a disproportionate amount of power in the media and in the ways of government.

When will we all learn that minority interest goups do not serve the greater population and that political correctness has created a far greater problem than open discussion. Let us not forget that many of the immigrant minority groups would seek to re-write the laws and customs of the land to suit them whilst bleating about the oppressive regimes they have fled (or is this just a cover for economic migration) and accepting ever increasing handouts from this weak and ineffective government which seems intent on destroying any national pride (completely acceptable in almost all other nations). The simple fact is that regardless of race or religion all people who seek to migrate to this country should regard themselves as British first and foremost, rather than seek internal segregation.

he was right in what he said though!

even if it was reproduced from when the 'war' was on

i know there must b a lot of bigotted people who agree with kilroys views, without perhaps thinking if they r true or not in this sensational media age we live in. if its true, so b it, but its not! arabs originate from the middle east, known as the cradle of civilisation. a lot of the things we take 4 granted originate from the arab world, who invented the wheel? who knows? but i do know that mathematics, algebra, medicine, astronomy, time keeping, the salvation of the old greek civilisation is due, thanks 2 the arabs, and lets not 4get the trousers!. we musnt 4get, that the arabs ruled a vast empire 4 nearly 1000 years, like the romans, egyptians, greeks, the british, and now the americans, u dont do that by accident! if i had read these comments in a bnp leaflet, id b shocked, but i know their views r largely meaningless, but by an ex-mp? a national tv personality? someone who may b able 2 think 4 himself? osama has done arabs and muslims in general no favours, but there r over a billion people who subscribe 2 this view, r they all terrorists, limb amputators and women oppressors? i think not...AS 4 KILROY, SQUIRMING IN HIS CHAIR 2 GET HIMSELF OUT OF THIS TRULY RACIST OPINION...IF UR READING THIS...U TIT!!

In a civilized country everybody has a right to express his/hers opinion and Kilroy only said what most of us think. I don't know LENIN, but I really think that you should go home to your mum and grow up before you venture into this world of intelligent people.

Kilroy's comments are just plain ignorant...

You may as well say that the British are murderers due to their financial and military support of certain dictatorial states in modern times. Sure not all British citizens supported the government, but they were elected, and they did in fact support Saddam while he murdered more than a million people within the last 20-ish yrs (fact or fiction?)

Are all British people racist because there is an active (if laughable) NF movement?

The point is that everyone knows things aren't that black and white, and so someone in Kilroy's position should certainly know better. If his comments are true (when qualified), I'd suggest they are so generic as not to be of any value (like the paragraphs above about our government).

It's good that the authorities are investigating, so that in future people qualify what they say with the facts. (What was the Editor thinking?)

Freedom of speach is one thing, but racism hidden under the veil of some extremely loose 'facts' is another.

Hitler used the media to distribute 'facts' about certain races that appealed to middle Germany.

Kilroy has the right to say what he wants, maybe some of his thoughts are best left in his head.

Dear Mr Winkel (tee hee),
Me and my mates would rather spend our youth laughing at your surname.

ROFL !!

> What???? How much evedence do you need to be considered proof? There is more than enough
> evidence to convict in any court of law. You are choosing to ignore this.

Well that is interesting. Which court of law, please?

Then why have none of the alleged living participants been convicted yet?
Why was the only 9/11 suspect charged in Britain released without charge?
 http://www.guardian.co.uk/ukresponse/story/0,11017,690174,00.html

Why did the FBI say that the only 9/11 suspect charged in the USA was not involved?
 http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_1432629,00.html

Why does the Congressional investigation of 9/11 keep getting continually blocked by the White House?
 http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/weekly_2003/bush_911_secrecy.html

Why have so many of the hijackers' passports, miraculously found, and miraculously still readable after burning up in a huge fireball in the WTC and Pentagon, been found to belong to people still alive and living in Saudi or Yemen, and who are not being accused of any crime at all?
 http://thunderbay.indymedia.org/news/2002/12/2373_comment.php

Put your corporate newspaper away, and have a look at what real evidence they've got so far, which is fuck all to be precise.

What is wrong with Kilroy-Silk stating the obvious? The problem with the world Is ISLAMIC RELIGION.

ISLAM don't forget was started by a group of Mohammed's followers making people convert to ISLAM at knife point. Even in it's earliest stages terrorism was already a fundamental part of it.

As for What have ARABS produced or to that matter anyone from an ISLAMIC faith produced for civilisation. NUMBERS, that is it!! Even at that the world could have went on using ROMAN NUMERALS.

I say the solution to the middle east is for the US administration to TARMAC the whole of the MIDDLE EAST and build a great big WALMART.

The guy's entitled to his opinion, after all in the UK we have 'mad mullah' types(self professed) that come from the likes of Egypt, live off state benefits & then decry the country they stay in.
Regards Kilroy Silk, I'm not a fan of his prog on the BBC, in fact I think he speaks too much & is overbearing, but like it or loath it the guy has a right to his opinion.
Is there as much freedom in the Arab states he was referring to? I doubt it.

Gus,
You clearly have the mental capacity of a goldfish. Well done for making it onto the internet, you are an icon to your kind!

"The problem with the world Is ISLAMIC RELIGION"

... uh, more likely people stupid enough to make comments like that

"ISLAM don't forget was started by a group of Mohammed's followers making people convert to ISLAM at knife point. Even in it's earliest stages terrorism was already a fundamental part of it."

.... so the Crusades were what exactly?

"As for What have ARABS produced or to that matter anyone from an ISLAMIC faith produced for civilisation. NUMBERS, that is it!! Even at that the world could have went on using ROMAN NUMERALS."

.... most things you take for granted, TV, the internet, even the fish food that is mass produced and dropped in your murky bowl are based on numbers.

"I say the solution to the middle east is for the US administration to TARMAC the whole of the MIDDLE EAST and build a great big WALMART."
.... I see where you are coming from now... Fish food stacked to the ceiling!...

Nice one!

Robert, I have met you on your program and found you to be a getleman. I feel it is about time someone like yourself comes out with this sort of comment as most of the British people feel these type of people are invading our shores and causing a lot of trouble to our honest citizens. We didn't have so much killing and robbery before they came into our country. They think WE owe them a living or the payments from the DSS. The Head of the BBC( Greg )only get there by being Rowland Rat so this says a lot about him.
Keep going Robert keep up the good work for the sake of the British people, and freedom of speech.
If I don't like a white person I can say so but if he is coloured I have to bite my tounge,this is in my own country.

R. Young

The crusades were to protect our religion against ISLAM infringing on our rights to freedom of thought and freedom of speech.

I think my university education gave me a little more intelligence than a goldfish, I like to think of myself as being more of a Manta Ray than a goldfish.

Rita,

'If I don't like a white person I can say so but if he is coloured I have to bite my tounge,this is in my own country.'

I wonder if the British offered the same consideration to the natives while building the empire?

The point about racism is that if you don't like a *person* you can say so without referring to their colour. There are many people I don't like and they *may* happen to be of different races as well, but that isn't the point.

You probably are a fan of the band Queen.... but hold on, Freddy Mercury was a Persian (Iranian), born in India....

Gus

If that's what your (comedy) university education taught you, then maybe you should go back and retake your NVQ's....

Most British history books talk about the Crusades being an opportunity for the monarchy to try gain support for themselves here and in Europe and also a chance to be able to send anyone who threatened their power to certain death, 1000's of miles away. Don't kid yourself that it was about the (modern) ideology of freedom of thought and speech.

Good on you Robert

I do not always agree with everything you say but I defend your right to say it.

This country has gone mad - is it any wonder that everyone who can emigrate is doing so and leaving it to them.

Hey no need to slag off Freddie Mercury & Queen, now it's getting petty & vindictive.
Ha.
I guess it boils down to the fact there are no set parameters in the UK here for what one can cannot say.
At the end of the day in a democratic country we have to accept all folk's right to say what they wish. When these groups etc start advocating terror & harming folk it's time they were told to shut up. This applies equally to BNP groups as much as to Fundie Muslim/Xtian or lilac pigs from Mars groups.
Being PC sucks the world is going mad when one can't call a spade a spade or was it shovel?.
There are so many more important things to fight, than each other.
Politics & religion, are the bains of this world.

The Crusades as far as I have read about them, was advertised to the people as the Xtian West freeing Jerusalem from the muslims,Go on the Crusade earn Brownie points in Heaven shit! but then the kings & princes of Europe needed folk to fight.Just a pity it turned into a petty charade with the holier than thou xtians ploundering the wealthy cities of the Holy Land & murdering all & sundry, inc Muslims,Jews & Xtians , it was a charade & cost the lives of 100's of 1000's on all sides & you know centuries later we've not learnt from these times one little bit.
Thank the gods I'm a pagan!.
Blessings,
Wayne

Hello... What's this?

This is a local island, for local people. We'll have no trouble here!

How strange that Robert Killroy is called a racist and his words are deemed
to incite.
Can someone please explain to me why Osama bin Laden ,the most wanted man in
the world is allowed to incite war on public forums such as the Arab cable
news channel. and other TV stations ??
If Killroy is stopped from using his channels of communication why hasn't
Osama bin Laden ? his incitement to go to war is far worse as he calls on
Muslims to continue jihad, or holy war.Can you imagine the fuss if any of us
went on TV threatening Bush or Blair !!!
Maybe we cannot catch him,but at least we could stop his evil words of
hatred from being advertised so easily.

And Robert Killroy ? he is only saying what most of the ordinary people of
this country think !!! and why should we think any different when on the day
3000 people were killed in the USA hundreds of Muslims/Arabs or whatever
they are were having parties in the streets all over the world !!!
Carry on Killroy, a voice of the ordinary man in the street.



MR.R.LOVELOCK

I think Robert Kilroy-Silk is wonderful and was only telling the truth about certain Arab states. In response to the Arab who posted the message that Arab women keep the money that they earn and the man pays the bills - excuse me? I will pay my own bills thank you very much because I depend on myself!! No man!! How patronising is that?! They get to keep the money they earn as pocket money but the man still has control of the finances of the household? And gets to have 4 wives? It would seem that Arab women are accepting crumbs because the men have to to keep them sweet so that they can get away with the chauvinist behaviour they indulge in. If they didn't "respect" the women a little bit there would be uproar!

I'm very sorry but frankly I think most Arabs are loopy - I have a Muslim guy who is my housemate at university and he is the most arrogant hypocrite you could ever hope to meet. When he first moved in he asked everyone how many times a day they prayed, asked me personally to stop eating pork, insulted everyones friends, and helped himself to the girls showergel until I took off on him and put a stop to it. He rants on about Allah and frankly he bores me. I believe in a Creator and was brought up Roman Catholic but I have recently converted to Mayana Buddhism because I like the fact it (a) Does not assume to know what we absolutely don't know - beyond life and its value and the fact that we all die eventually. (b) Does not invoke fear of this life the way Catholicism, Islam and other religions do, rather it teaches that life is to be cherished. and (b) Is the only belief system that has no religious wars/killings to its name.

I believe in life, I believe in peace. I do not blindly believe Jesus was the son of god or Mohammed was anointed because there is far too much schizophrenia on this planet! Thank you very much. REINSTATE ROBERT KILROY-SILK!!!

It is free speech that alows you to write bile such as this

Kilroy is saying what most people think and believe in the U.K. I get sick and tired of hearing all the crap from Arabs aimed at us, their views and hatred directed at the West. So how long do you think we'll put up with this shit for? Well G.W.B and Tony thank god have made a stand, to be honest I don't give a fuck if it isn't for the reasons that they're saying. I know they have justiforcation for what they are doing and really showing these dictoral, bigamistic, backward, lieing, theiving bastards that we will not put up with this shit, this is the best stance they can take. (now there is something to jump up and down about)

Let's face it the Bayswater rd would be a ghost town without Arabs coming over here, yet it's alright for them to come here and get drunk and screw whores, but yet they behave in a completly different light in their own back yard, why is that?

We need to deal with these people in the laungage that they'll understand and Cuba is a great platform for this, I personally wouldn't let any of them go. Look if your caught in the middle of a battle zone where it's all kicking off and captured I think your fair game for whatever happens next, if the boot was on the other foot do you think they would be treated any better.... Yeah right.

People need to understand that if you direct hatred and violence towards anyone then it will only be a matter of time before they fight back. I wish that we could all get along and live peacefully side by side but then I am a pisces and maybe that's why.

Dear Jerry,

Once again you have twisted my words. I must congratulate your commitment to the PC way.

I was backing up the clear statement that the hideous act of 911 was carried out "in the name of allah" This is the fact (or is it opinion?) that I am sure could be proved in ANY court of law.

I will accept that I shouldn't have used the word convict. How can you convict ashes?

"Then why have none of the alleged living participants been convicted yet?"
Because they are no more than ashes. The others involved are always going to be difficult to track. They certainly did a good job of destroying the evidence, and the lives of many innocent people.

"Why did the FBI say that the only 9/11 suspect charged in the USA was not involved?"
Because the US people want some answers. They are struggling to find anyone. I am sure that at times they will clutch at straws.

"Why does the Congressional investigation of 9/11 keep getting continually blocked by the White House?"
Maybe it's because 911 was carried out by a group of teenagers who want the drinking age lowered and the white house would rather their parents not find out. I thnk you are straying from the topic here, so my response reflects this.

"Why have so many of the hijackers' passports, miraculously..."
I will re-use a previous answer:-
Because the US people want some answers. They are struggling to find anyone. I am sure that at times they will clutch at straws.

Can I please ask you a question. Do you really think that the murderers of 911 were not of Arabian decent?

Also, Can I please ask you to refrain from using such language.

Regards,
Rod

PS. I am gald to see that public opinion is now better reflected in this forum.

I think its worth a read as it does respond to some of Kilroy's criticisms (or should i say racist/fundamentalist/extermist views as these words are always attached to Muslims!).

 http://world.mediamonitors.net/headlines/antiislamic_extremists_and_fanatics

Dear Jennifer, I think you are being very ignorant in your views about Arabs. For starters one hyprocrite Muslim cannot be used to generalise all Muslims. In fact if you met a 'proper' Muslim you would definitely have none of the issues you mentioned above. Secondly, just a response to the Women's rights issues you mentioned. Try the links below. They're very brief explanations but if you're interested in finding the facts then Google is your friend. (If you were interested I could even get you whole books on Women's rights in Islam!)

 http://www.islam.tc/ask-imam/view.php?q=9765
 http://members.ozemail.com.au/~azma/Q&AFOURWIVES.htm

Just an extra comment, (for my fellow conspiracy theory believers) I never have been convinced of the 'facts' of 911 that were shoved down our throats by the US government and the media (Why didn't the US show the Taliban their 'evidence' against Bin Laden when the taliban offered to hand over Bin Laden if the US showed their evidence?). However, if Bin Laden or any other Muslim did carry out those attrocities let me tell you they are 110% un-Islamic, as summarised here:
 http://www.islam.tc/ask-imam/view.php?q=3790

Sorry if I've gone slightly off topic because I haven't read all of the posts.

This kind of Anti-West, Christian hating, extremist publication is merely a mirror image of what Robert Kilroy-Silk wrote in the newspaper.

This would never provoke such a reaction because of the rather silly PC society that we are in.

Yamin Zakaria should be sacked on the spot. Hold on. This can't happen. Why? Because we respect this persons right to an opinion even if we do disagree with it.

GR81, Thanks for providing the link to the explanation by Mufti Ebrahim Desai. Many a wise word there. I wish that more people would adhere to those simple principles.


I will leave the silly talk of Jihad to one side for now ;)

It's about time this draconian dinosaur got what I say he truly believe he deserves. What a bloody cheek, to label a nation,race or state(s) even, as being 'suicide bombers,limb amputators, and women repressors. He's a presenter and journalist that MEANS FOR THE FOOLS WHO DON'T UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT fair,impartial,balanced and above correct news. It's a travesty that the producers of the brand even let him continue his rant.On the other hand, I gather that he does own the company that makes the programme. Time and time again I have watched in utter disbelief this so called journalist over rule fair and intelligent comments from political opponents or plain members of the public who disagree with his somewhat right winged views. Being from the North it's quite easy to understand why he cannot embrace multicultural London, thats not to say all Northerners embrace his tragic beliefs on the whole. Finally well done The BBC and get the old man out - lets have some fresh new talent and and throw the bigot in the trash

Thankyou


Tony London based

I've just been browsing the internet trying to find a way in which I can vote to support Robert Kilroy-Silk - and before you break into a cold sweat and feel your bottom lip quivering, let me explain why.

Firstly, he spoke his mind. Just the way you have in retaliation to his remarks. It's a free country, he can say what the hell he likes to whoever he wants. The only mistake he made was making generalisations about certain people. The thing that really bugs me, is that me, you and the rest of the world knew exactly what he meant and who he was directing his comments at - so why on earth do you have to come online, review the entire article he wrote and pick it apart. I'll tell you why, it's because people like "Lenin" who wrote the previous article, have nothing better to do. You log onto the internet, string together some mind-numbingly boring mumbo-jumbo and sit there all day. I've checked your website out too Lenin and I must say, you really need to get out more.

Here's a generalisation of my own, people like you, need to not get so worked up about words (because that's all they are at the end of the day), you need to go and find a member of the opposite sex, get laid, or settle down with them, whatever floats your boat, and stop boring us all criticising everybody.

Take care.

The level of pig ignorant, myopic, bile in the postings on this thread have to exceed the worst I have ever seen on Indymedia.

Not one of the people supporting Kilroy have come up with any rational, reasoned or balanced justification for their hatred of Arabs and/or Muslims, save for resort to a caricatured, stylized view of the Arab/Muslim as shifty, feckless, fanatical kleptomaniac. Would it make it easier for these people if the world was populated by cartoons?

It truly astonishes me that so many Mail readers now post on Indymedia, and astonishes me more at the muted reaction they have received from regular posters on this site whose views, ethics and values reflect in some part those of Indymedia itself.

It tires me to have to refute some of the bigoted views that some cretins have posted on this site, and I have better things to do today, but I can't just sit here and let them froth away unchallenged.

1) Evidence linking Osama and Al Quaida to 9/11 is, at best, circumstantial. A wider conspiracy involving the White house, the Saudi royal family, the Binladens and the American secret services, all kneeling before their kab'aa of the PNAC seems far more likely. Let us not forget that most Islamist insurgents were funded, supported and trained initially by the CIA as a bulwark against Soviet socialist expanisionism in the middle east and central Asia. I, for one, find it hard to believe that such groups are not infiltrated by America's finest to this day, and as such continue to work to the higher and more covert agenda of these forces. '1984' seems a good enough blueprint as to how a bogeyman can be created and used to repress one's own populace, and as such Osama has directly contributed to the foundations of a police state in our own countries. Coincidence

2) Crime in the UK is currently going down, not up, while immigration continues to rise. How would the previous poster then justify her wild assertion that immigrants are criminals? Surely the converse would be the case if the statistics are anything to go by

3) Immigrants are more, not less, economically active than native born Britons, as for the most part they are determined to succeed in their new homes. In the long run this will create jobs and contribute to the GDP of an aging population, while guaranteeing the pensions and social support network that the nasty little quasi-fascits posting on this thread will so naturally be enjoying in decades to come.

4) The middle east remains in turmoil, and yes, extremism does exist. Would any poster here not turn to extremes as they see their culture, their way of life, the future of their children, their religion and the very economies on which their countries rest used as a pawn in the geopolitical games of the major powers. The middle east and north Africa has, in the last century alone, been occupied or invaded by France, the UK, Turkey, Zionist Israel, Germany and Spain, and this without relent or cessation. During the couse of these 'incursions' millions have died or been displaced, economies shattered and pliant and extremely nasty client regimes installed to repress their populations when the invading armies finally rumble into the distance. See Iraq as a shining example of such: nothing ever changes.

5) So much of what you hear is filtered through through the all-pervasive lens of our media. Take the Telegraph, for example. It's board of directors includes such luminaries as Barbera Amiel (rabid Zionist journalist and Sharon apoligist), Henry Kissinger (wanted war criminal, mass murderer, rabid Zionist and the Richileau or our times), and John Perle (rabid Zionist and architect of the PNAC) as well as good old Conrad Black (rabid Zionist and stripper of his own company's assets to the tune of $300,000,000 ((allegedly))). Murdoch, too, is a Zionist, reflected entirely in the reporting of the Middle East situation to be found in his rags and on Fox News. This means that everything you read is weighted to portray Arabs and Muslims as foaming-mouthed lunatics bent on the destruction of all you hold dear - and yes, they're OVER HERE!

6) The comments of some of the more fundamentalist Muslim groups are unfortunate and not to be condoned. I wonder if you feel the same when you hear some moron in the pub stating that we should 'nuke the lot of them', or when the Star newspaper leads with the headline 'Nuke Baghdad!' as it did in the leadup to Gulf War I? Would you condone this because the speaker or the media is white and 'Christian? For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, and it surprises me not in the least that Muslim hate groups have sprung up in the UK, spouting the same vicious, unpleasant shite as their WASP counterparts.

7) There have, as yet, been no racially or religiously motivated murders of white Christians by non-white Muslims in the UK. Equally, there have been no reported terror attacks or a religious nature on the British mainland. A worrying trend of murders of ethnic minorities and Muslims by racist, white Brits looks set to increase. Ditto for terrorism - almost all terrorism related deaths in the UK have been carried out by, er, white Irish Catholics, who also come over here taking our jobs and espousing hate, on the part of some of them, for our country. Should they be repatriated or do previous posters reserve their judgements for non-whites who 'hate' our 'way of life'?

8) What the fuck is our 'way of life' exactly? I await definition with bated breath.

9) The Crusades. Don't make me laugh! And to think that some cock claimed his university education as a crutch for his ignorance on that period of history. What about the third Crusade then? Remember that one? Yup, that's right, they ran out of money in Venice and got into the debt of the wily old Doge. He was displeased by the domination of the trade routes by Christian Constantinople and negotiated a write off of the debt if those good Christian, god fearing soldiers would just invade, sack and loot Constantinople, yes, Christian Constantinople. Some guardians of the faith! And yes, they slaughtered 100s of 1000s indiscriminitely and eventually got their arses kicked by a superior Muslim culture. Nuff said.

10) Finally, but not least, what previous posters have shown themselves to be is simple ignorant mindless racist fucks, just like that unctuous little twat Kilroy. To all of you fitting that category, don't worry too much if Obersturmfuhrer Kilroy Silk is no longer on our screens, we still have that odious wanker and fellow hater of non-whites Jim Davidson to fall back on

Bendeus,

Thankyou for your educated opinions. You appear to be an intelligent person and I can appreciate your frustration. However, the comments that you just made are just as offensive as any Davisdson joke.

The column by Silk was written in response to similar comments to the ones that you just made.

Like you said. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

And like I said to Jerry before. I would appreciate it if you wouldn't swear so much.

Cheers,

Sorry when I say "as bad as them" I mean by your own standards.

I take Davidsons Jokes and Silks comments in the context that they are intended.

Who, Ron, are 'them'?

In what context do you appreciate my frustrations? Is this genuine empathy as to my anger at posts such as yours encouraging bigots to come out of the woodwork, or is it an attempt to show how reasonable you are before you throw assertions without foundations back at me?

I would like to understand in what context my comments are 'offensive'. I have posted with the passion I feel regarding the issue of racism and demonisation of an entire religion, culture and way of life. This may at times cause me to swear, and I find it ironic that someone who is posting articles berating political correctness would have their fragile sensibilities so bruised by the odd 'fuck'.

I would like you to provide some substance to your assertion that the Silk article was written in response to similar comments to the ones I just made. Which comments of mine? Can you provide some kind of link to the comments he was refuting?

A Jim Davidson 'joke', as told live to an audience:

"Are there any Pakis in 'ere?"

(no response from audience)

"Good!"

Cue uproarious laughter. In what 'context' exactly would you take that, Rod?

Seems to me that your seemingly earnest postings regarding political correctness fuelling racism is nothing but a cover for your own bigotry and ignorance. Check out the log in your eye, Rod.

'Cheers'

Yes, Robert Kilroy-Silk is an annoying sexist who blames the world's domestic troubles on women, but also yes he should be able to express his personal views - in public if he wants to (like we're doing now). And I agree with him in some way. Islamic fundamentalists seem to be allowed to come and live in England to preach hatred of the West weekly in their mosques built on British land (and may have even lost a hand whilst constructing terrorist weapons) and we help them do it. There are many all over Britain who live here in the comfort and safety of our democracy and yet who talk hate and defiance, daily inciting people to join a jihad or take up arms or fight to the death to preserve Islam against the unbelievers. The same unbelievers who provide them with such a comfortable, safe standard of living. Why do we let these people have the freedom to incite war and racial killing, and yet one of our own citizens can't express a personal view that is anti-Arab? Many Arabs are utterly anti-West and say so, often publicly. In my view we're treading a dangerous ground by being overly politically correct to constantly protect a minority. The rise of people expressing views of the far right will be more and more supported if people feel that we can't air our views if they are even slightly anti anybody who is not white. This country is becoming perverted if it's only okay to slag off the whites but not allowed to make any comments that don't put non-whites only in a positive light. Besides, Islam is a TERRIBLE religion, and why should anyone want to say positive things about it or poor people who have been brain-washed into believing it? There is a similar issue with the Taliban and Sadaam Hussein: These two regiemes were utterly evil. Why on earth should we talk and compromise with evil? Evil is something you eradicate without giving a chance. The French and German government need to take note. Surely it's a *duty* to get rid of evil asap, not negotiate and talk with it. I may not like Robert Kilroy-Silk particularly, but I believe he should be able to express his views, and just because they do not say wonderful positive things about all Arabs, I feel he has been most stupidly and unfairly punished.

I would just like to comment from a non-biased view point being half English and half Persian.
I think what Mr. Kilroy Silk said was wrong, since he does not seem to have much experience when it comes to Arab people. I am not a limb amputator, woman surpressor (i am far from being surpressed) or a suicide bomber. I admit there are a small minority of people who are like this, but do you not deny that you have screwed up people too. I take the example of Ian Huntley and the Soham murder and many other people that have horriffied the British nation, much like 9/11 horrified Arabs and Persians. Kilroy cannot blame all Arabs in the world for the 9/11 attacks which were CONDEMNED by every Arab or Persian I know.
The people who conducted these attacks are not muslim, Islam wholly condemns acts of violence like this. In the Qur'an it also says that men and women should be modest, Arab woman dress in the abaya because they prefer not to dress in a Western way because they are not used to it, although the majority of young people have adopted the Western style of dressing.
Where I live - Bahrain - it is a tolerant country, there are many Christian, Jewish, Sikh, Hindu, Budhist etc places of worship. I have Budhist, Christian, Jewish, Hindu and Muslim friends. We can get on. Why does not the rest of the world?
Why does Kilroy hate me, before he has met me? It does not make me a bad person because of who my Father is. It agonizes my poor 14 year old heart that some people could be so prejudiced and cruel.

J Griffiths,

You are right that this country is going down, if people like you and Kilroy still maintain the ignorant views that you do. Clearly there is something wrong with the education system here.

[Thankfully] There are laws to prevent racial motivated comments that may incite violence. Which is exactly why, if (I repeat, if) you come across a fundamentalist preaching hatered and violence, I suggest you contact the proper authorities in the same way that has been done against Kilroy. From memory, in the one known case of this (I assume you were referring to Abu Hamza), I believe that the authorities took appropriate action. I also don't recall anyone from the Muslim Council or community complaining about it, because being educated and reasonable, they realised that this fundamentalist is a racist and a bigot who should not be allowed to preach in this manner.

I wonder if you could save your dole cheque, forego your 20th annual trip to Butlins, and instead travel the world and actually meet the real people you are talking about with such conviction, would you still possess the views that you do? Here's hoping...

I have seen several comparisons made between Abu Hamza and Silk. How can this be? Did Silk advocate killing anyone?

What Silk published fell way short of this. Put down your pitchforks. Call off the posse.

Them? Silk and Davidson. The people you spoke of.

I appreciate your frustrations because many people are racist being beleif. I am not this way. My Girlfriend is not English, Many of my friends during my life have been in the "ethnic minorities". I hold these people in the same respectful light that I hold many of my other "white" friends.

I do not find swear words in the slightest bit offensive. What I do find offensive is the liberal use of such words in a public forum like this.

Ok what do I find offensive about what you said?

Refering to peoples views as "pig ignorant, myopic, bile"
Refering to posters as "cretins"
Refering to posters as "nasty little quasi-fascits"
The suggestion that the board of the Telegraph are extremists beyond the.... (I'm looking for another word but only 1 word will do) ...evil that is Osama Bin Laden.

Refering to posters on here as simple ignorant mindless racist F&*£s. I guess that you are putting me in that bracked.

The mere suggestion that I would "turn to extremes" in the same situation makes me sick to the stomach. I see this as you defending 911. To suggest that I could perform such a hideous act of destruction on anyone is disgusting.

You defended 911. Granted, the defence was indirect. It was talk like this that Silk was refering to. How can anyone even consider defending such a loss of innocent lives.

Onto the Joke. Yes it is offensive to some, no it's not very clever. It's a joke. Get a sense of humour. You know what you are getting when you watch his show. You don't like it? Stay away then.
I have had my race, car, Town, Build mocked many times. But I always find it funny.

Welsh comedian,stands up and says "Are there any English people in the audience?"

Silence

"Good"

Sorry but I find that funny. Whichever way round you do it.

But from what I see, You say it's wrong to use that Joke but it's fine to fly an aircraft into a building? I think I would rather someone call me a fat bastard than shoot me thankyou very much. At least I can laugh at the viciously size"ist" joke. I'm sure that you can correct that word for me being a PC plonker.

BTW, You wanted a description of our way of life. Our way of life involves freedom of speach, democracy, education for all etc etc. Something that many Arabian countries have forgotten.

Thanks for spelling my name wrong. And thanks for mocking my "Cheers". Makes me feel really at home :)

Naah. He'd be too worried about being murdered, buggered and eaten (not necessarily in that order) by one of those wild-eyed, foreign heathen who teem in their countless numbers just outside the shores of these sceptr'd isle just waiting for the chance to bomb us and our Queen, steal our benefits, jobs and women, make our streets smell of curry and build their terrible places of worship (and human sacrifice) on the still smouldering ashes of our churches.

Best that s/he shuts his/her doors and windows and votes in the next kneejerk, vote seeking chancer to use asylum/rivers of blood/enemy at the gates rhetoric to propel themselves to leadership.

Mr./Mrs. Griffiths, the oligarchy needs YOU!

Rod,

I was only referring to the ridiculous generalisations made by the post above mine. The point is that there are laws in the UK that correctly restrict people from making racial motivated comments. As a result Abu Hamza was dealt with appropriately and so should any other fundamentalist or racist.

Kilroy is to be investigated, lets wait and hear what the proper authorities have to say.

Despite his comments about 'certain regimes', I think his more generalised comments were just plain stupid. Monty Python come to mind with their (comedy) sketch, 'What have the Romans [Arabs] ever done for us?'...

... the conclusion was that they had actually done quite a bit.

Kilroy, what an idiot!

Fair enough Stephen :)

Good point well made.

Just some of the people on here seem to want him burnt at the stake for being opinionated.

>

But find it fine when Kilroy denigrates their entire culture and history. This is hard respect, Rod, and I wonder what your non-white friends would feel about this.

>

And I stand by my remarks. I am discriminating against such posters on the simple basis that they are racist and as such are a threat to the society that I would like to see growing from the morass that we find ourselves in. Racists, conversely, discriminate against people on the basis of nothing more than their own fear, paranoia and hate. I continue to maintain that such people are every single one of the adjectives/nouns I have used above, and then some.

>

Kissinger is directly responsible for the overthrow of at least one democratically elected government (Allende, Chile) leading to the murder of over 10,000 political opponents to the Pinochet regime, and the carpet bombing of neutral countries (Cambodia, Laos) during the Vietnam war, leading to the deaths of over 400,000 innocent people. Is this extremist enough for you? Makes the WTO deathtoll look fairly puny in comparison, doesn't it? Richard Perle is the co-author of the document 'Project for a New American Century' which you would be well advised to read

 http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

- a non biased neutral article. So, when we're talking 'evil', all is relative.

>

Yup.

>

Where, exactly, did I defend 9/11? The only defence I would mount would be of the right of the people to know EXACTLY who was behind it, why it happened, and why, if my suspicions turn out to be true, Perle and Kissinger are very much more evil than Osama would ever be. If the truth ever came out, the current government of the US would be swinging high from the nearest lamp posts. Check out:  http://www.911truth.org/

As for the Welsh/English thing: c'mon! And you wonder why I'm accusing you of racism - by equating a Welsh/English joke with a Pakistani joke you're rather unsuccessfully trying to shift the paradigm and in doing so digging yourself into an ever deeper hole. Maybe you're one of those people who gets outraged that Black people can call themselves 'nigger' but we as whites are not allowed to. The fundamental of Davidson's joke, and in fact the basic tenet of his dimly viewed outlook on life is hatred of the 'other', and by joking about it, and inviting us to laugh, he is inviting us into that hatred or at the very least to condoning that hatred, and thus it is perpetuated, 'cos it's all a bit of 'harmless fun', right?

>

At no point in my post, and I'd advise you to look again, have I equated telling a racist joke with flying a plane into a tower at any point, you are reducing the debate to the point of absurdity and flinging around some fairly daft accusations at the same time. If you can't keep up, Rod, keep out!

'cheers' again

They weren't, but if Kilroy's comments _were_ racist, so what?

If I were to say 'everyone in the labour party is a LYING CRIMINAL' then, aside from being TRUE, it cannot me classed as an -ism or something-ist.

If I were to say 'all nigerians are money-grabbing scammers' then, I don't know if its true but I'd be considered 'Racist'. What a load of stinky old rubbish.

I live opposite THREE Pakistani families, all of whom have at least 10 people living with them...they are rude, ignorant and intolerant. From my experience of growing up near Walsall (a ghetto if ever i've seen one) MY opinion on Pakistanis (remember, its my opinion and I don't care if you disagree) is that they are all stealing, filthy, lazy, illiterate filthbags. You want to call me racist for that? Go ahead - its just sticks and stones to me my friend.

On my second point, I note that there is a post about the BNP being laughable in this country. I don't know about laughable but they aren't in any danger of getting into Number 10 anytime soon.

Why IS that, I wonder? Especially since I reckon this country has just about had enough of immigrants and their kind.

Lets give an example - if I were to take two 100m runners and put them on the starting line, then CHOP the arms and legs off one of them...who would win?

The coverage of BNP policy in all forms of media is biased. No one allows the BNP to state their agenda without prickly comments and name calling (Nazis! Nazis! I've got news for you - The Nazi party were National Socialists in Germany and I'm not so sure the BNP are socialists). Do they get TV time in election run-ups? Nope.

What I'm trying to say here, people, is THIS. Kilroy can say what he likes. I can say what I like. The BNP can say what they like. But until each and every one of us can do this without prejudice and bigotry spat at us then this country isn't as free as you would pretend it is.

That folk who INTERSPERSE their COMMENTS with words in CAPITALS are EDUCATIONALLY SUBNORMAL and have all the POLITICAL NOUSE of a NEMATODE WORM.

I have read at least THREE such posts today and will state CATEGORICALLY that the posters are TOTAL MUPPETS with at best a RUDIMENTARY grasp of syntax. I don't care if people who read this call me a CAPSLOCKIST, or any other kind of -ist.

INTERESTING then that BNP is nothing more than an AMALGAM of three CAPITAL LETTERS.

I rest my case

P.S. What was my case again?

Having just arrived back from India six days ago, where I travelled also three years ago, having journeyed in Africa and lived in Italy, having read the Qu'ran from beginning to end, having a degree and Masters from well-known British Universities I feel just as qualified to write my views on Islam as anyone else.

Some of the immediate stereotypes about me are embarrassing. Why resort to (incorrect) personal abuse? Calm down folks! I'm intelligent, *well-travelled*, non-racist and happy with my daughter, wonderful man and many friends. I just don't like Islam. And I say so. Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, Jainism, Sikhism, even Catholicism are all preferable religions to Islam. Islam is a violent, converting, hungry, prejudiced religion - worse than the others. Yes it is. Like a cancer, as Catholicism was in the days of missionaries all over the world. Neither is good. Both are unhealthy. I call a spade a spade.

Responding to my comments without guessing things about me personally would have been more intelligent, especially as the guess were childishly wrong!

Is Kilroy Silk Jewish? Many named Silk are of the faith. Does this explain his views I wonder? Israeli's have long been child murderers, woman abusers and murderers of defenceless displaced Palestinians but with ownership of the media mainly under Jewish control we never hear much about it. Israel has weapons of mass destruction including selective biological weapons. When will president Bush and Tony Blair invade there I wonder......? Not much in the way of oil reserves though......

"That folk who INTERSPERSE their COMMENTS with words in CAPITALS are EDUCATIONALLY SUBNORMAL and have all the POLITICAL NOUSE of a NEMATODE WORM. "

Of course you are welcome to voice your opinion but can I ask upon which evidence you base this? You say Educationally Subnormal, yet I have an MSc and PhD - so that can't be true can it. Unless of course you made your comment with the unwritten caveat that your assertion doesn't apply to absolutely everyone that CAPITALISES their COMMENTS? Of course, if that is the case, it demonstrates that while racists generalise about a culture/race/etc, there are always exceptions and I guess we should never take comments as being such.

Which means Kilroy is off the hook?

While we're on the subject of Kilroy being a Jew - don't you think they are all whinging, lying, self-centered, self-important idiots? ;-)

'Islam is a violent, converting, hungry, prejudiced religion - worse than the others. Yes it is.'

It's sad that you can maintain the view above and still consider yourself an educated and travelled person. Violent? How many wars have been started in the last century due to Islam? How many countries have been invaded due to Islam? I can't remember the last time I read about people converting to Islam under pressure. People convert because they want to. I'm not muslim but am open minded enough to let the facts speak for themselves. Prejudiced? 1 billion people of any race, and apparently the fastest growing religion on the planet. Hungry?... hmmm is this a comment on the third world? I don't understand the relevance.

In your view it might be worse than the others, but the freedom of choice that we hold so dear, surely applies to 1/6th of the world's population who have made their choices as well. My travelling experience has been very different from yours. 1000 (0.0001%) or even a million (0.1%) rotten apples cannot speak for 1 billion people!

I'm afraid that you *come across* as not knowing what you are talking about. An education should teach you the ability to learn from people who know.... either post some facts, or do some research first.

"the freedom of choice that we hold so dear"

Surely education should have taught you that freedom of choice in this country and indeed this world is an illusion, a fallacy?

We are loathed. And Silks document was in reply to this loathing. That is how he feels and I understand that. He has a right to express an opinion.

Ok. Carry on name calling. Call me a racist all you want. By your standards I am a racist. I don't pretend that we are all the same because we aren't. That doesn't mean that I want war or people to all live in segregation. I want to embrace these differences and see if we can live in peace.

Well. What an eye opener. Thankyou for showing me this hideous website.

Again. Thanks for the name calling. I am glad that you dislike me being a PC plonker and all.

Where did you defend it. Indirectly I said. "Would any poster here not turn to extremes as they see their culture..."
Any poster? So you think that I can kill so many? Wow, I really am an achiever in your eyes.

The joke. It's a Joke. Its the same thing no matter what the subject matter. I don't have to have am opinion of the race in question to find it funny. As far as I am concerned, the race in question is irrelevant. The funny aspect of the joke is that there are no "race x" in the building and he says good. Does he have to like "race x" Why? Because you say so?

And yes you did equate telling a racist joke to flying the aircraft into a building. You said "Would any poster here not turn to extremes as they see their culture..." suggesting that it's OK. You then went on to say how offensive you find an Englishmans humour. It wasn't in the same sentance so you see fit to defend it by saying that you didn't equate them. But read again, You did. Just in 2 seperate sentances.

It appears to me that you want to stiffle any opinion that doesn't match up to your own.

BTW. I have to agree with a lot of what you say. I just disagree with a lot also.

Yo, if we're talking racism on TV then is there anything more offensively racist than the 'MOBO' awards?

If someone was to propose and produce some awards for music of white origin there would be uproar - so let me get this straight, its ok to positively discriminate towards blacks but if we do the same to whites then it is genuine discrimination and racism?

I pray for nuclear holocaust every day, to wipe the stain that is PC people off the earth. So we have to die to? Small price.

Robert Kilroy-Silk is best known as the silver-haired, smooth-talking presenter who has fronted his own morning chat show for 17 years.

The former Labour MP for North Knowsley was described as a fiercely ambitious politician and was even viewed as a potential future prime minister.

But in 1985 he decided to resign from Parliament to move into the media world.

Since November 1986 he has hosted BBC1’s Kilroy and is known for his lively and often controversial studio audience discussions.

The 61-year-old presenter, dubbed “the housewives’ favourite”, also had a shortlived career as a quiz show host on ITV’s Shafted.

He owns a hugely successful production company, The Kilroy Television Company.

Despite his charm, some of Kilroy-Silk’s comments off-air have landed him in hot water on a number of occasions over the years.

In 1992 Kilroy-Silk was forced to apologise to the Irish people and EC Commissioner Ray MacSharry over “racist” comments.

The former MP had described Mr MacSharry as a “redundant second-rate politician from a country peopled by peasants, priests and pixies” in his Daily Express column.

Ireland’s Ambassador to Britain Joseph Small condemned the “gratuitously offensive and indeed racist remarks”.

Kilroy-Silk subsequently made a formal apology and accepted that his comments were both “offensive and unjustified”.

The then editor of the Daily Express, Sir Nicholas Lloyd, also apologised to the Irish people.

He said: “The Daily Express dissociates itself and I disassociate the Daily Express from his opinions, which I think go some way to slandering the entire Irish nation.

“Kilroy himself is by background and family Irish. His mother is Irish, most of his family are Irish. He could travel on an Irish passport, and I don’t know quite what got into him.”

In December 1998 Kilroy-Silk showed he did not take too kindly to criticism.

The presenter lashed out at the Broadcasting Standards Commission, saying that its £2 million budget would be better spent on the National Health Service.

His comments came after the commission described his morning chatshow as “victim entertainment”.

Kilroy-Silk has also been known for his angry outbursts in the past.

During his political career, he once had to be restrained in the Commons Division Lobby following a disagreement with fellow Labour MP Jeremy Corbyn.

The presenter does not always take himself too seriously.

He once admitted: “I’m paid an awful lot of money, which is why I continue to do it, but it’s not exactly brain surgery, is it?”

Kilroy-Silk, who has two children with wife Jan, has enjoyed an enormously successful career, but shadows have emerged in his personal life.

In 1990 his son Dominic was jailed for 10 months in Ford Open Prison after pleading guilty to a £350,000 mortgage fraud.

Five years later it was reported that he had a secret love child, conceived with an art teacher during his tenure as an MP.

Now Kilroy-Silk has been thrust into the media spotlight once again with his controversial article about Arabs that has sparked widespread fury.

Following the suspension of his talk show, it seems the presenter’s future now lies in the hands of his employers.

Quoth Rod:

"I was backing up the clear statement that the hideous act of 911 was carried out "in the name of allah" This is the fact (or is it opinion?) that I am sure could be proved in ANY court of law."

Your instincts are correct: it's an opinion. Opinions are not facts. Show us your evidence that 9/11 was carried out "in the name of allah", or that the 9/11 hijackers were Arabs. Where is this "clear statement"? If it exists, then why has NO court of law managed to see it yet?

"'Then why have none of the alleged living participants been convicted yet?'
Because they are no more than ashes. "

No, the alleged DEAD participants are ashes. The alleged LIVING ones are very much alive. None have been convicted yet. All but one (Moussaoui) has been set free for lack of evidence, and in the case of that one the FBI has clearly stated they're sure he was not involved in 9/11. If you have some evidence that the court doesn't know about, you should come forward with it.

When I pointed out that the FBI and the British courts agree that there's no evidence of Arab involvement in 9/11 yet, you say "they're clutching at straws". No, they're not, but you are, in your rush to pin the blame on someone you don't like.

"Can I please ask you a question. Do you really think that the murderers of 911 were not of Arabian decent?"

I have no idea. And neither do you. And neither does Kilroy. As soon as we find some real evidence of someone's guilt, then we can decide on it. Until then, you should stop jumping to conclusions based on lies and half-truths put out by the press. Look at the evidence, and judge for yourself.

Dear : sir


For some time now, I have been deeply troubled about why the BBC continues to employ Robert Kilroy-Silk in any capacity, let alone in such a high profile position as the morning chat show host on BBC1. It is truly galling to see an Islamophobic presenter like Kilroy enriching himself over a number of years courtesy of a publicly funded body such as the BBC.

Kilroy-Silk is – as you must know - a man who positively revels in airing his anti-Arab and anti-Muslim views. I wonder whether you would consider it proper to give the same kind of prominence to a presenter who was so openly anti-black or anti-Jewish?

Certainly, if the word ‘Jews’ was substituted for ‘Arabs’ in the Kilroy quotes above it seems to us that the BBC and the whole world would not tolerate any delay before it took substantive action against Kilroy.

I have found difficult since the article been published, one of my patient refused me to exmine him, he thought I am a limb amputator!!!!

I was deeply shocked by sunday express papers republication of the infamous Kilroy Silk article, however I was not surprised as you pander to a largely ignorant and uneducated readership. You seem to have forgotten along with the rest of the proletariat that Europe suffered the Dark Ages whilst the Arab world preserved and refined most of what mankind's knowledge amounted to. Islam as a religion is also the only phiosophy to require education as part of its doctirine.

dear tony,

what exactly do you mean, 'being from the North it's quite easy to understand why he cannot embrace multicultural London'??? I completely agree with you when you say 'what a bloody cheek, to label a nation, race or state as....' but as a little confused as to why you then go on to make such a generalisation about Northerners? 'Bloody cheek'.

I know you add 'that's not to say all Northerners embrace his tragic beliefs on the whole', but I think if you asked Kilroy about the article he wrote he might say 'that's not to say all Arabs embrace these beliefs on the whole'.....doesn't really make what he's written sound any better though, does it?

:-)

I may not like the guy [Kilroy-Silk] but in amongst the media hysteria and plethora of misquotes and 'mis-speaks' let's try and make points which are reasonable and objective.

Actually while we [members of the general public] are being 'herded' into baying for the blood of this high-profile media 'minnow' what 'big fish' are slipping into safer deeper waters? Are we becoming more suceptable to 'Weapons of Mass Deception' and Spin-Doctors?

Always ask questions like which one of us was there? who GAINS from this, is the criticism constructive?

Kilroy said a lot of controversial things which may have caused offence and you have chosen to castigate him. If you are ready to criticise him for expressing a controversial, yet vaild, point of view, why are you unable to criticise suicide bombers? Suicide Bombers are not fighting for any cause other than the destruction of the Jewish State. I have spoken to pro-palestinian lobbiers, who I know do not represent the views of the majority of peaceful, intelligent muslim people. These lobbiers have made it clear that Israel 'should wait until the messiah comes' and in the mean time the whole of Israel should belong to its 'rightful' owner, the Palestinians. These suicide bombers are fighting in the name of these extremists who do not believe Israel has a right to exist. This is exactly what Kilroy is saying, and why are you so incapable of recognising your own flaws? Are you so blind, narrow minded and arrogant that you cannot see that suicide bombers are wrong? If you do recognise it - say it! I said it earlier, I'll say it again, the majority of muslims are decent people. But the one thing I am annoyed with the majority of muslims is that they do not condemn those amongst them who let them down - i.e. the oppressers of women, suicide bombers, those who claim to represent Islam but in fact represent tyranny and war. These groups, such as al-qaeda and the majority of Arab governments, are disgusting and tyrannical. They HAVE to be removed and for the Muslim community to regain the respect they deserve they must not be afraid of criticising this minority of extremist thinkers who believe that they are right and that murder is ok if it's in the name of god

i NOTICE YOUR COMMENTATOR IS ENJOYING HIS RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH, WHY WILL HE NOT ALLOW HIS PEERS TO DO THE SAME

All you need to do is make a study of Arab newspaper articles as condensed on  http://www.memri.org to see Mr Kilroy-Silk has a point.

1) Free thought and free speech are the corner stones of a democratic society.


2) Kilroy has clearly been politically incorrect.
Who decides what is politically correct ? Do we get a vote on what is politically
correct ?


Agree with him or disagree with him, frankly I care not one jot. Shout as loud as you want either way but if we take away his right to free thought and speech you should be prepared to sacrifice those rights yourself. Anyone reading or writing on this site clearly values those rights.

MEMRI is a Zionist propaganda mill. Take anything you read there with a LARGE pinch of salt.

Look at the people who praise it on their "About Us" page: it's like a Who's Who of the Neocon raving right:
 http://www.memri.org/aboutus.html

Research? Analysis? My arse!

David,

First of all I don't condone suicide bombing, however to try and understand the motivation and history behind these activities, can I recommend an article in this weeks Economist magazine?

It's quite informative and reasonably balanced. It points out that suicide killings have been practiced by various groups for centuries. Like the Zealots and Sicarii (2 Jewish sects) attacked Roman *occupiers* in Judaea in the 1st century. In the 18th century groups in India, Indonesia and the Philippines launched attacks against their colonial rulers. More recently the Tamil Tigers.

Again I'm not justifying the act, just pointing out that [some] Arabs don't have a monopoly on suicide killing. The article does go on to talk about specific Arab terrorist groups, and the religious dilema of suicide [unequivocally denounced in Islam] vs. martyrdom [death in jihad].

My personal opinion, since you are asking, is that if someone is pushed far enough they will lose sight of their cause. Both sides are to blame here, state sponsored murder and oppression vs. state sponsered terrorism. It will take a powerful mediator to resolve [if they have the will to].

TO ALL ARABS!!!!

FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS SO COOL!!!!!

AND WHEN KILROY GETS HIS JOB BACK I WILL APPLAUD

why cant this man or any other for that matter speak his mind in his own country? get off his back, is it ok for muslims to preach there fanatical beleifs on us in our place of birth? to openly critisice our way of life and encourage ther people to hate and murder westeners, to burn our flag, flout our laws ,plot against us and all the time close the door to anyone who wants to compremise? all of the things that kilroy said are fact not hear say. this country of ours is goimg down the pan rapidly because liberal dogooders keep letting theese people first of all come here, then set them up with a home and money and then say that we must give them freedom of speech and let them preech, but dont you dare say anything against them, oh no that is racist. mark my words theese people will not rest until the world is ruled by islam, this country is an easy target for them to build a western base to achive this. am i a racist? i dont know and i dont care, i judge people on ther induvidual merits. but tell me why the muslim community closes its door to westeners, should they not make an effort to blend in and accept our way of life if they choose to live amoung us? surely this would kill half of peoples bad vibes about them.robert kilroy silk spoke his mind, he spoke the truth and he stands by it. like the man or not good on him. this country needs more people to stand up and say hang on a minuite, what are theese people doing here, i live here, i was born here, this is my country and i am proud to say it. wake up britain before it is to late.

As the article was written for and printed several times by Richard Desmond's newspaper I would like to point out that Desmond is a child of asylum seekers who has consistently attacked asylum seekers on the front pages of his newspapers (Express and Star) but only the ones from Muslim countries.
He is Jewish and a Zionist and has a vested interest in stemming the flow of Muslims into this country, which is understandable.

Someone who was a guest of some Jewish media barons in the US in the 1960s, told me once, that one of them said to him that Joseph Goebbels - whom they believed was himself Jewish or part Jewish - had taught them that if you own and control the media you can tell people what to THINK.

Robert Maxwell, Desmond's predecessor who also had a vested interest in controlling the mind of the British public famously had headlines in the Mirror saying there was no Mordechai Vanunu and there was no Israeli nuclear programme.

Few British people remember the terrorist past of the Jewish state, (they even despatched people to kill British cabinet ministers in the early days), their belief in the goodness of Israel and the badness of Arabs, undoubtedly has been implanted by the Zionist press barons such as Murdoch and Conrad Black. Needless to say the Zionist or Jewish ownership and control of the British media has worked out well and is never a subject for discussion in polite society.

Robert Spoke what many of us thought in the article he was suspended for. If you read the entire article, what he says makes perfect sense, even if it is not "PC"

Let the man speak his mind. You may not like what he says, but you should defend his right to say it.

Do you not get fed with this continuous crap?! If you look at any war, recent or of old, chances are it stems from religion! We go on about Weapons of Mass Destruction ignoring the fact that the most frequently used and devastating weapon used throughout time is and has been religion!

I do not have anything against people who chose religion let me get that straight before I am bombarded with abuse! I think people have a right to believe what ever they like. I personally am an atheist. I believe that religion was a way for early man/woman to explain the fascinating yet terrifying world around him/her. However, my personal view is that in this day and age religion is obsolete. Where I differ from, seemingly, a vast proportion of the rest of mankind is that I do not feel that others should share my view! I do not think that they are stupid for not sharing it, and I try not to inflict it upon everyone else (I am aware of the slight hypocrisy as I am inflicting it on the widest medium possible but I justify this by the fact that you do not have to read it)!

My long-winded point is the hatred between the western world and Arab nations is mostly, in one way or another, to do with religion! It is our differences which make this world an interesting place. If we could accept this, and with a little respect (i.e. politely respecting each nations and religions customs), we could all get on!

It is a shame that the simplest Ideas are often the hardest to achieve. As for Mr Kilroy, he is justified to his opinion. If you don't like him and his views, turn him off! There are plenty of other channels with far more interesting programs. I would say to anyone who is offended by his views, why do you care? Who is Mr Kilroy to you? As far as I am concerned he's some smarmy fool on the TV!

The BBC is of course right. This isn't about freedom of speech. This is about racial hatred and that's exactly what Mr Kilroy-Silk preaches. In classifying Iran as an Arabic country, his expertise in geography is also quite evident. A presenter who can no longer be classed as unbiased and neutral is not eligible to host a programme which has such diverse themes. Writing for Daily Express should now be his full-time job. Good luck to him.

People quoting "free speech" are missing two things.
First, we are not talking about his opinions as an individual, or even his opinions as a columnist. Not only is he an employee of the BBC, he is paid to be the chair of discussions, to be in a position of trust & balance. This kind of article in incompatible with that job: it is as simple as that.

Secondly, there are limits. "No one has the free speech to shout 'fire' in a crowded theatre". We have had - quite correctly - laws on racial hatred, and this is in that area.

This was a stupid, ill-judged & ill-informed article. If nothing else, those are three reasons to sack him.

If I offended our customers at work with disparaging comments about Arabs, Jews, White people, Black people, Indian or Pakistani people, I will be rightfully told to leave the company especially as I could be affecting our business with these groups and with anyone race offended by these comments. My company would not be "PC-Mad", they will be looking out for their customers.

Funny? Kilroy manages to be puerile, obscene and racist all at once.
Funny, when Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad recently made headlines for a statement to the Organization of the Islamic Conference, the world's largest Muslim group, “Jews rule the world by proxy. They get others to fight and die for them.” The whole world including Uk called him a racist. In January 16th 1995,Kilroy wrote an article that caused great offence to the Muslim Community and for which he has never made an apology (probably because the complaint was not upheld by the PCC). I will be really surprised if Kilroy appear again in the screen.

For all those supporting KS, if someone had said the same things about the Jews - they would have been accused of being Nazi-sympathisers and would no doubt have been sacked immediately. KS has never been the impartial facilitator he is supposed to be on his programme and his bigoted and racist views have always shone through. Get him off the air and bring on someone who can act truly impartially

Recent events remind
us that racism remains rampant. Yet we can easily end racism through
understanding and education.
People must realize
that God created all humans from one couple, thus making the entire human race
one large extended family. God says:

O mankind! Be
careful of your duty to your Lord who created you from a single soul (Adam), and
from him (Adam) He created his wife (Eve); and from the two of them He spread
abroad a multitude of men and women…
(Qur’an 4:1).
Furthermore, we must
understand that no race is superior to another. We appreciate a garden having
many different flowers because we realize that each adds something to the beauty
of the entire arrangement. This is why we do not object to the color of any
flower. In a similar way we can see the world as a garden decorated with people
of different colors. Let us appreciate that each variety of people contributes
something to the spice of life in this world. God says:

What makes Kilroy a racist – and he is a racist – are his blanket generalisations. He defended his comments in the media by quoting Amnesty, and saying that there are figures to corroborated what he wrote in his column – that arabs violate the laws of human rights on a daily basis. If he'd been less selective in his use of evidence, he would have found that Amnesty also record daily violations of human rights by Israeli soldiers, who kill countless Palestinian women and children in the appropriation of disputed territories.

If Kilroy had used this to defend the opinion that jews were all morally retarded child murderers, he would have been no more correct or well informed. But I can't help but feel he'd have far few supporters across the nation and beyond. One law for the lion, another for the ox, and none – as ever – for the arabs.

Dear Mohammad, when did God say that? Why do people feel the urge to quote the bible at others? If Mr Kilroy had kept his specific views to himself he wouldn’t be in the hot water he is in now!

As fascinating as your big incest theory is, I’m afraid we all evolved from the many bacteria which 1st inhabited this Earth. I’m sure you could have expressed your point (with which I agree) that we all stem from the same source without quoting, what I assume, is the Bible at everyone!

That’s half the problem today, people aren’t happy just to get on happily believing what they want, they don’t seem to be able to resist inflicting it upon everyone else. A view can be expressed without preaching the Bible, Koran etc, without conflicting your own religion/beliefs!

Dear Ryan,

I think a quote can be a valid reference to make a point. The author of the post you refer to obviously thinks there is some truth within their choice of reference, and so is as valid as any other post, opinion or comment.

Scientific explanations (which I generally agree with), may be technically accurate, but can lack the poetic beauty of scriptures. He says 'Adam and Eve', you say 'bacteria', but you both agree on the point.

"The wisdom of the wise, and the experience of ages, may be preserved by quotation."
Benjamin Disraeli (1804 - 1881)

"An Arab" has said that Arabs have made a significant contribution in Science and Medicine and many including Mark seem agreeing him. Well! I dare say this is not a fact. "Arabic Numerals” is only the short for “Hindu-Arabic Numerals.” These numerals were actually invented of Hindus and Arabs only learnt from them. The concept to ZERO has come to us from India not from Arabia.

Arabs have made a contribution but is that too significant? Find any list of inventions and see how many inventions have been made by the Arabs. Electricity, cars, computers, airplanes, from simple thermometer to latest CT-Scan, nothing is contributed by them. This scientific advent has been made in the last 500 years. Now you see where the world was standing when Arabs became supper power and what scientific horizons they had discovered when they were removed from the scene.

An unbiased study will show nothing very significant. Read “History of the Arabs” by Philip K. Hitti to see what they have done in the fields of science and medicine.

Dear Anon’

You are quite right, my attack was a little unjustified. We are all entitled to our specific views. I was just trying to spark a debate rather than the current list of views. A far wiser man than either of us once said:

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

Which I think is a happy compromise.

However I felt that Mohammad was using what I regard as fiction to prove a valid point which I feel fact would better illustrate.

I am a stubborn realist.

"I viewed my fellow man not as a fallen angel, but as a risen ape."
-- Desmond Morris

The Scientific Miracles in the Holy Quran

Dear: Ryan

Many thanks for taking time to read the previous post. The Quran is the literal word of God, which He revealed to His Prophet Muhammad ( peace upon him) through the Angel Gabriel. It was memorized by Muhammad ( PUH), who then dictated it to his Companions. They, in turn, memorized it, wrote it down, and reviewed it with the Prophet Muhammad . Moreover, the Prophet Muhammad9PUH) reviewed the Quran with the Angel Gabriel once each year and twice in the last year of his life. From the time the Quran was revealed, until this day, there has always been a huge number of Muslims who have memorized all of the Quran, letter by letter. Some of them have even been able to memorize all of the Quran by the age of ten. Not one letter of the Quran has been changed over the centuries.
The Quran, which was revealed fourteen centuries ago, mentioned facts only recently discovered or proven by scientists. This proves without doubt that the Quran must be the literal word of God, revealed by Him to the Prophet Muhammad ( PUH) , and that the Quran was not authored by Muhammad (PUH) or by any other human being. This also proves that Muhammad (PUH) is truly a prophet sent by God. It is beyond reason that anyone fourteen hundred years ago would have known these facts discovered or proven only recently with advanced equipment and sophisticated scientific methods. Some examples follow.
The Quran on Human Embryonic Development

 http://www.islam-guide.com/frm-ch1-1-a.htm

The Quran on Mountains

 http://www.islam-guide.com/frm-ch1-1-b.htm

The Quran on the Origin of the Universe:

 http://www.islam-guide.com/frm-ch1-1-c.htm

The Quran on the Cerebrum:

 http://www.islam-guide.com/frm-ch1-1-d.htm

The Quran on Seas and Rivers:

 http://www.islam-guide.com/frm-ch1-1-e.htm

The Quran on Deep Seas and Internal Waves:

 http://www.islam-guide.com/frm-ch1-1-f.htm

The Quran on Clouds:

 http://www.islam-guide.com/frm-ch1-1-g.htm

Scientists’ Comments on the Scientific Miracles in the Holy Quran:

 http://www.islam-guide.com/frm-ch1-1-h.htm


and finally

www.islam-guide.com

sincerely,
Mohammad

God was a bit vague when imparting this amazing knowledge to his Prophet Muhammad (peace upon him) through the Angel Gabriel.

On embryonic development;

“We created man from an extract of clay. Then we made him as a drop in a place of settlement, firmly fixed. Then We made the drop into an alaqah (leech, suspended thing, and blood clot), then We made the alaqah into a mudghah (chewed substance)...”

If I’m to read this literately as you seem to have then I should comment that, as far as I know, I am in no part made from clay.

It isn’t the most impressive deduction to bring a blood clot into it. Whist medical science was rather lacking fourteen centuries ago I believe women still had periods. I’m also sure that miscarried embryos were still studied (obviously not at a microscopic level) and physicians of that time had sufficient knowledge to recognize that they bared a resemblance to a ‘mudghah (chewed substance)’. I’m sure, even in those early days, a better description could be formed!

I have picked upon one of the links you offered. I read them all and could argue with each of them.

I’m sure that the Prophet Muhammad (PUH) was a wise man, and tells a good story from which many lessons can be learnt. Whilst it is great to lose oneself in fiction you will do well to remember that this is a real world. If you stare at anything long and hard enough, you will see what you want to, but when you reach for the mirage you will grasp only sand!

Yours sincerely
Ryan

"A) The Quran on Human Embryonic Development:
In the Holy Quran, God speaks about the stages of man’s embryonic development:


We created man from an extract of clay. Then We made him as a drop in a place of settlement, firmly fixed. Then We made the drop into an alaqah (leech, suspended thing, and blood clot), then We made the alaqah into a mudghah (chewed substance)... 1 (Quran, 23:12-14)"

....Speaking as a physics graduate, I think I'll stick to the modern scientific theories to be honest. I guess it just goes to show that you can read any meaning into anything if you want to. I would say I am agnostic, I would certainly like to believe there is a higher purpose to existence than 70 years of surviving on this screwed up world full of hatred and violence before dying and oblivion. Sadly I cannot see why a God as merciful as in the bible would create a world with such hatred. And whose religion is right? Christianity? Its younger brother, Islam, or its elder, Judaism? Shinto? Hinduism? Buddhism? Native American spiritual beliefs? If you have a belief, fair enough, I envy you for it, your security in knowing that after you die you will go into an afterlife. Just don't expect me or any other non-believer to believe it or to believe the most tenuous of arguments about why a god must exist. When He arrives on earth to stomp out all the religious fanatics so convinced that THEY are in the right that they will butcher their neighbours over a different interpretation of scripture (for example let's look at religious issues closer to home: Christianity, i mean, look at Northern Ireland - all that violence between two sects of the same religion!), then perhaps i will have 100% belief, but for now i will stick to scientific proof. If someone has a different belief or opinion to myself, I accept that, and agree that variety and debate make the world a more interesting place. I don't try to shoot him. (or her) Nor am I trying to say that all those who are religious would do so. Oftentimes religion is merely used as an excuse for those in political power to gain advantage themselves, with a thin layer of religious fervour coating the real reasons. But there are a small minority whose belief is so strong that they are willing to die or kill for it, and I feel like saying - "your belief in your god does not offend me, indeed i am happy for you that you have such a thing. So why does difference of belief offend you so that you must harm me for it?". Ah, the world is a crazy place, in that I must agree with the title of a recent song to chart in the UK: "Mad World"

Isn't all this a bit off topic however? The issue of Kilroy trying to claim he was speaking about specific arab nations and their despotic rulers, when in fact his wording would indicate he meant all arabs is what this is about, no? Yes, if he said what he did, the BBC were right to distance themselves from him if his views conflicted with the image they as a corporation wish to display to the world. More, if he meant it as a criticism of all arabs, then he displays himself as a bigot. If he meant to word it to criticise certain despotic and cruel regimes, then certainly there are such regimes in the middle east, but these are not restricted to the arab nations (I may be courting controversy here but I for one regard Israel to be the source of most of the trouble, violence and death in the middle east, rather than the arabic nations, and if Israel could learn to accept the Palestinian's right to co-exist then perhaps the area might be a better place) and he should have made sure his words were written as he meant for them to be. Personally having viewed his show for a very short length of time, I thought he was an overbearing and arrogant individual uninterested in the thoughts and views of others. Also, he was wrong to say nothing had come from the arab nations - much medieval knowledge of science, medicine and various other things came from the region - although in modern times the major thing to come from the middle eastis a large amount of oil exploited from the local populations on behalf of the greedy western world, and why wouldn't they feel a little angry at us for that?

And indeed, it seems to me on this forum that apart from a few well thought out and intelligent opinions, mostly it is a display of single minded views and/or bigotry from both sides, with neither willing to listen to the argument of the other. If people were more willing to listen to those who hold opposing views rather than dismiss them out of hand because they do not conform to what we consider to be 'right', maybe we could all learn to live alongside one another in peace and friendship.

I'd go back and reword this little rant to sound a little more sensible and a little more eloquent, perhaps put some time into researching history to come up with examples, arguments and facts....but i really think I'd be wasting my time.

Good day to you all.

From: The Journal of the Islamic Medical Association, Vol.18, Jan-June 1986, pp.15-16

A Scientist's Interpretation of References to Embryology in the Qur'an
Keith L. Moore, Ph.D., F.I.A.C.
The Department of Anatomy, University of Toronto, Canada.
Address all correspondence to:
Keith L. Moore, Ph.D, F.I.A.C., Professor of Anatomy and Associate Dean Basic Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M55 IAB, Canada



Statements referring to human reproduction and development are scattered throughout the Qur'an. It is only recently that the scientific meaning of some of these verses has been appreciated fully. The long delay in interpreting these verses correctly resulted mainly from inaccurate translations and commentaries and from a lack of awareness of scientific knowledge.

Interest in explanations of the verses of the Qur'an is not new. People used to ask the prophet Muhammad all sorts of questions about the meaning of verses referring to human reproduction. The Apostle's answers form the basis of the Hadith literature.

The translations(*) of the verses from the Qur'an which are interpreted in this paper were provided by Sheik Abdul Majid Zendani, a Professor of Islamic Studies in King Abdulaziz University in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.

"He makes you in the wombs of your mothers in stages, one after another, in three veils of darkness."
This statement is from Sura 39:6. We do not know when it was realized that human beings underwent development in the uterus (womb), but the first known illustration of a fetus in the uterus was drawn by Leonardo da Vinci in the 15th century. In the 2nd century A.D., Galen described the placenta and fetal membranes in his book "On The Formation of the Foetus." Consequently, doctors in the 7th century A.D. likely knew that the human embryo developed in the uterus. It is unlikely that they knew that it developed in stages, even though Aristotle had described the stages of development of the chick embryo in the 4th century B.C. The realization that the human embryo develops in stages was not discussed and illustrated until the 15th century.

After the microscope was discovered in the 17th century by Leeuwenhoek descriptions were made of the early stages of the chick embryo. The staging of human embryos was not described until the 20th century. Streeter (1941) developed the first system of staging which has now been replaced by a more accurate system proposed by O'Rahilly (1972).

"The three veils of darkness" may refer to: (l) the anterior abdominal wall; (2) the uterine wall; and (3) the amniochorionic membrane (Fig. 1). Although there are other interpretations of this statement, the one presented here seems the most logical from an embryological point of view.


Figure 1. Drawing of a sagittal section of a female's abdomen and pelvis showing a fetus in utero. The "veils of darkness" are: (1) the anterior abdominal wall; (2) the uterine wall, and (3) the amniochorionic membrane.



"Then We placed him as a drop in a place of rest."
This statement is from Sura 23:13. The drop or nutfah has been interpreted as the sperm or spermatozoon, but a more meaningful interpretation would be the zygote which divides to form a blastocyst which is implanted in the uterus ("a place of rest"). This interpretation is supported by another verse in the Qur'an which states that "a human being is created from a mixed drop." The zygote forms by the union of a mixture of the sperm and the ovum ("The mixed drop").
"Then We made the drop into a leech-like structure."
This statement is from Sura 23:14. The word "alaqah" refers to a leech or bloodsucker. This is an appropriate description of the human embryo from days 7-24 when it clings to the endometrium of the uterus, in the same way that a leech clings to the skin. Just as the leech derives blood from the host, the human embryo derives blood from the decidua or pregnant endometrium. It is remarkable how much the embryo of 23-24 days resembles a leech (Fig. 2). As there were no microscopes or lenses available in the 7th century, doctors would not have known that the human embryo had this leech-like appearance. In the early part of the fourth week, the embryo is just visible to the unaided eye because it is smaller than a kernel of wheat.


Figure 2. Top, a drawing of a leech or bloodsucker.
Below, a drawing of a 24 day-old human embryo. Note the leech-like appearance of the human embryo at this stage.
Figure 3. Left, a plasticine model of the human embryo which has the appearance of chewed flesh.
Right, a drawing of a 28 day-old human embryo showing several bead-like somites which resemble the teeth marks in the model shown to the left.



"Then of that leech-like structure, We made a chewed lump."
This statement is also from Sura 23:14. The Arabic word "mudghah" means "chewed substance or chewed lump." Toward the end of the fourth week, the human embryo looks somewhat like a chewed lump of flesh (Fig. 3). The chewed appearance results from the somites which resemble teeth marks. The somites represent the beginnings or primordia of the vertebrae.
"Then We made out of the chewed lump, bones, and clothed the bones in flesh."

This continuation of Sura 23:14 indicates that out of the chewed lump stage, bones and muscles form. This is in accordance with embryological development. First the bones form as cartilage models and then the muscles (flesh) develop around them from the somatic mesoderm.
"Then We developed out of it another creature."
This next part of Sura 23:14 implies that the bones and muscles result in the formation of another creature. This may refer to the human-like embryo that forms by the end of the eighth week. At this stage it has distinctive human characteristics and possesses the primordia of all the internal and external organs and parts. After the eighth week, the human embryo is called a fetus. This may be the new creature to which the verse refers.
"And He gave you hearing and sight and feeling and understanding."
This part of Sura 32:9 indicates that the special senses of hearing, seeing, and feeling develop in this order, which is true. The primordia of the internal ears appear before the beginning of the eyes, and the brain (the site of understanding) differentiates last.
"Then out of a piece of chewed flesh, partly formed and partly unformed."
This part of Sura 22:5 seems to indicate that the embryo is composed of both differentiated and undifferentiated tissues. For example, when the cartilage bones are differentiated, the embryonic connective tissue or mesenchyme around them is undifferentiated. It later differentiates into the muscles and ligaments attached to the bones.
"And We cause whom We will to rest in the wombs for an appointed term."
This next part of Sura 22:5 seems to imply that God determines which embryos will remain in the uterus until full term. It is well known that many embryos abort during the first month of development, and that only about 30% of zygotes that form, develop into fetuses that survive until birth. This verse has also been interpreted to mean that God determines whether the embryo will develop into a boy or girl.

The interpretation of the verses in the Qur'an referring to human development would not have been possible in the 7th century A.D., or even a hundred years ago. We can interpret them now because the science of modern Embryology affords us new understanding. Undoubtedly there are other verses in the Qur'an related to human development that will be understood in the future as our knowledge increases.


(*) Even though the translations of the verses of the Qur'an in the above paper were provided by Sheik Abdul Majid Zendani, the links to the translations in this page are from Yusuf Ali Qur'an Translation ( http://qibla.msa.upenn.edu/alim_online/yali_trans/yasurahl.htm) presented by the Alim Online since Sheik Zendani's translation is not available on the internet. (MSA-UTK)

This is disgraceful that this guy has been sacked. The BBC is a bastion of extreme leftist propogandists and obviously they don't want employees who don't "toe the company line". This is the same BBC that was booted from Israeli cable tv networks and had severe restrictions placed upon their reporters by the government of Israel because of its anti-semetic attitudes, yet they have the gall to kick Mr Silk out?

I believe that there are many Muslims out there who truly are decent human beings and like anyone else are not perfect, but in general I don't see this to be the case. Even if they didn't support the 9/11 terrorists, there is this widespread knee-jerk anti-Israel/Jewish sentiment where they immediately side with the Palestinians simply because they are fellow Muslims. Most of these people give excuses to justify suicide bombings and are taught a very twisted version of the facts regarding the Middle East conflict.

It was no surprise that after Mohammed Mahathir gave his racist speech last year about how the Jews control the world, that the Arab/Muslim leaders at that conference all gave him a standing ovation and agreed with what he said. Anti-semitism is so widespread in the Muslim world, that it will take a very long time to reverse the damage that has been done.

Islam itself has promoted the killing of Jews. Initially when Mohammed first went to Medina, he was friendly towards the Jews because he wanted to entice them to convert to Islam. When they wouldn't do so, he slaughtered them and forced their wives and children into slavery. This is the way Islam has operated over the centuries after its birth. Is this the "Religion of Peace" that I keep hearing about? Those people who try to rebutt this by giving the Crusades as an excuse, there is a big difference between people who claim to be Christian and slaughter innocent people which goes against the teachings of Jesus Christ, and people who slaughter innocents, but are following the teachings of Mohammed.

It is good to see that there are people like Mr Silk who won't tolerate this kind of Muslim fundementalism anymore. I hope he finds a new job somewhere where he won't be censored for not toeing the leftist line.

PS: I am not white and I don't believe that criticising people based on ideologies (something which can be changed) is the same as criticising people based on their race (something which cannot be changed and is the true definition of racism).

At this important juncture in history, we call upon unbiased thinkers to engage in earnest dialogue to try and bring about better understanding for both sides and keep our peoples away from the domain of conflict and prepare the way for a better future for the generations to come who are expecting a lot from us.

We must invite everyone to the process of dialogue that we present to our world, and do so under the umbrella of justice, morality, and human rights, so we can give glad tidings to the world of a process that will bring about for it peace and tremendous good.

To the extent that dialogue is necessary and effective, it must maintain a tone of respect, clarity, and frankness. These are the prerequisites for its success. Dialogue itself can only be built upon such a foundation, and those participating in it must be willing to accept criticism and correction unflinchingly.

Therefore we say clearly and in total frankness that we are prepared to discuss any issue raised by the West, realizing that there are a number of concepts, moral values, rights, and ideas that we share with the West and that can be nurtured to bring about what is best for all of us. This means that we have common objectives. Nevertheless, we, just like you, possess own governing principles and priorities and our own cultural assumptions.

Islam Values and Guiding Principles

There are a number of basic principles and moral values that govern our dealings with other nations. These were set forth fourteen centuries ago by the messenger of Islam, Muhammad. This was before human rights organizations existed and before there was a United Nations with its international charters.

Let us look at some of these:

1. The human being is inherently a sacred creation. It is forbidden to transgress against any human being, irrespective of color, ethnicity, or religion. The Qur'ân says: "We have honored the descendants of Adam." [17:70]

2. It is forbidden to kill a human soul unjustly. Killing a single person is to God as heinous as killing all of humanity, just as saving a single person from death is as weighty as saving the lives of all humanity. The Qur'ân says: "If anyone killed a person except as recompense for murder or spreading havoc in the land, then it would be as if he killed all of humanity. And if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the lives of all humanity." [5:32]

3. It is forbidden to impose a religious faith upon a person. The Qur'ân says: "There is no compulsion in religion." [2:256] A person will not even be considered a Muslim if he or she accepted Islam under duress.

4. The message of Islam asserts that human relationships must be established on the highest moral standards. Muhammad said: "I was only sent to perfect good conduct."

The Qur'ân says: "We sent aforetime our messengers with clear signs and sent down with them the scripture and the balance so the people could establish justice. And We sent down iron wherein is mighty power and many benefits for mankind." [57:25]

We read in another place in the Qur'ân: "God does not restrain you with regard to those who do not fight you on account of your faith nor drive you out of your homes from dealing kindly and justly with them, for God loves those who are just." [60:8]

5. All the resources of the Earth were created for humanity. The Qur'ân addresses this when it says: "It is He who has created for you all that is on the Earth." [2:29] They were only created for human beings to benefit from them within the limits of justice and for the betterment of humanity. Therefore, spoiling the environment, spreading havoc on Earth, perpetrating violence against weaker nations and fighting to wrest from them their wealth and the fruits of their prosperity, is conduct that is reviled by God. In the Qur'ân we read: "When he turns his back, his aim is to spread mischief throughout the Earth and destroy crops and cattle, but Allah does not love mischief." [2:205] and: "Do not make mischief in the Earth after it has been set in order." [7: 56]

6. Responsibility for a crime rests solely upon the perpetrator of that crime. No one may be punished for the crimes of another. The Qur'ân says: "No bearer of burdens must bear the burdens of another." [35:18]

7. Justice for all people is their inalienable right. Oppressing them is forbidden, irrespective of their religion, color, or ethnicity. The Qur'ân states: "And whenever you speak, speak justly, even if a close relative is concerned." [6: 152]

8. Dialogue and invitation must be done in the best possible manner. The Qur'ân says: "Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good preaching and argue with them in the best manner" [16:125]

We believe in these principles, as our religion commands us to. They are the teachings of Muhammad. They agree to some extent with some of the principles that the American intellectuals put forth in their paper. We see that this agreement gives us a good platform for discussion that can bring about good for all of mankind.

The Events of September 11 and their Implications

It is completely unreasonable to turn the tragic events of September 11 into a means of categorizing our world's ideologies, civilizations, and societies. Those attacks were unwelcome to many people in the Muslim world due to the values and moral teachings of Islam that they violated.

At the same time, we find strange the hasty conclusions made about the motivations of the attackers, restricting them to an attack on American society and its universal human values. Without going into a lengthy argument about the matter, we see it as our right and the right of all impartial thinkers, as well as the right of all Americans, to inquire as to why the attackers did not choose some other country that adheres to the same Western values? Why did they not turn their attention to other nations and societies in Asia and Africa that subscribe to idolatrous religions, for they would have been more deserving of attack if the issue with the attackers was to fight against those who disagreed with their values. Moreover, Islam teaches that the Christians are closer to the Muslims than any other people. History tells us that the prophet of Islam, Muhammad, during the early years of Islam, sent a group of his followers to one of the Christian kings of Ethiopia, because his kingdom enjoyed an unparalleled recognition of rights. It also tells us that Prophet Muhammad sent a letter to the Christian king of Rome and one to the Christian king of the Copts. Both letters were received graciously. The Qur'ân speaks about the Christians as being the most morally virtuous in their dealings of all religious societies outside of Islam: "You will find that the strongest among men in enmity to the believers are the Jews and pagans, and you will find that the nearest of them in love to the believers are those who say: 'We are Christians'." [5:82]

Why must we ignore this history and permit a superficial and premature reading of events? This is not all. The laws that Islam came with are there to establish a stable life for both those who believe in it and those who do not. Furthermore, the Qur'ân describes the Prophet Muhammad a "a mercy to all humanity". Yet, when one faction prefers to create a conflict with the Muslims or to ignore their rights, then Islam responds by resistance and self defense, which are among the objectives of jihad. The West must realize that by blocking the specific options and moderate aspirations of the Muslim world and by creating conflicts, they will bring about perspectives in the Muslim world that will be hard to overcome in the future and will create problems for generations to come all over the world.

It is unreasonable to assume that those who attacked the United States on September 11 did not feel in some ways justified for what they did because of the decisions made by the United States in numerous places throughout the world. We by no means hold the view that they were justified in striking civilian targets, but it is necessary to recognize that some sort of causative relationship exists between American policy and what happened.

From another angle, if we were to assume that the perpetrators of the September 11 attacks against the United States were the work of some special faction from within Europe, China, or Japan, or even a religious faction of the Jews, would America's decision then have been to subject them and their nations to the type of aggression that they are now confronting the Muslims with? This policy only supplies more evidence to the alleged perpetrators and their sympathizers for their claim that America is oppressing and aggressing against the Muslim world.

The events of September 11 should be an impetus for establishing a new assemblage of international institutions to establish justice and secure people's rights. They are needed to supplant institutions like the United Nations General Assembly and the UN Security Council that were established after the two World Wars to defuse the war between imperious nations. Those institutions failed to realize justice and security for the weaker peoples or protect their countries. Institutions are needed that will not act merely as a theatre for extending the reach of the great powers. How many peoples have become wretched and had their resources stripped away from them by force for the benefit those overbearing powers.

Likewise, those events should make us turn our attention to the fact that exaggerated strength, no matter how many ways it might manifest itself, is never a sufficient guarantee of security. A small group, if they have the will, can cause massive harm and injury to their opponents, no matter how strong those opponents might be.

We have learned from history that power is not the only way to guarantee security, since the types of guarantees that come with sheer power carry with them the seeds of failure and collapse and are always accompanied by resentment and discontent from one side and arrogance from the other. But when those guarantees are built upon justice, then the possibility of their success is far greater.

If the Americans view what happened on September 11 as a turning point for them in how they define their relationship with the Muslims generally, not merely with the group of people that actually carried it out, then can we be blamed when we see that the presence of the Jewish state of Israel on Palestinian land and the control they hold over it through the support of the major powers was and still is a decisive factor in defining and shaping our relationship with the West, as well as with its values and institutions?

Our Position on America

We can easily see today that the Eastern block - Japan and China - seems more alien to the understanding of the Islamic World than does the West. There are many more bridges connecting the Islamic World to the West than there are connecting it to the East. There likewise exist mutually beneficial relationships and common interests between the Muslim world and the West. It should be assumed that the West perceives it in their best interests for there to be balance and stability in the Muslim World and that it knows that the Muslim lands have provided much for them, especially economically. The West is the primary beneficiary of Muslim economic strength.

In spite of this, every individual in the Muslim World perceives that China and Japan have not caused the Muslim World any clear problem, nor have they done anything detrimental to its concerns, countries, and societies. The average Muslim perceives Easterners to be more just, balanced, and more clement than the West. This feeling has been instilled in the minds of the individual members of Muslim society by the West itself.

If the United States sought to withdraw from the world outside its borders and removed its hand from inflammatory issues, then the Muslims would not be bothered whether or not it is a progressive, democratic, or secular nation.

The disagreement between us and American society is not about values of justice or the choice of freedoms. Values, as we see it, are of two types. First there are those basic human values shared by all people, values that are in harmony with the innate nature of the human being and that our religion calls us to. Then there are those values that are particular to a given society. That society chooses those values and gives preference to them. We do not wish to compel that society to abandon them since our religion teaches us that there is no compulsion in religion.

It goes without saying that a number of those values are social preferences that are drawn from their given environment.

Likewise, we do not accept that others can force us to change our values or deny us the right to live by them. We see it as our right - and the right of every people - to make clear to others what we believe in order to foster better understanding between the people of the Earth, bring about the realization of world peace, and create opportunities for those who are searching for the truth.

The United States, in spite of its efforts in establishing the United Nations with its Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other similar institutions, is among the most antagonistic nations to the objectives of these institutions and to the values of justice and truth. This is clearly visible in America's stance on the Palestinian issue and its unwavering support for the Zionist occupation of Palestinian land and its justification of all the Zionist practices that run contrary to the resolutions passed by the United Nations. It is clearly visible in how America provides Israel with the most advanced weapons that they turn against women, children, and old men, and with which they topple down people's homes. At the same time, we see the Bush administration mobilizing its military strength and preparing for war against other countries like Iraq, justifying its actions with the claim that these countries are perpetrating human rights abuses and behaving aggressively towards their neighbors.

This conduct of theirs creates in others a mental image of the United States of America as a nation that respects neither international organizations nor the moral principles upon which democracy rests.

A number of the values mentioned by those American thinkers are not exclusively American values. They come from many sources and represent the contributions of many civilizations, among them the Islamic civilization. Muslims and many others throughout the world do not see these values in America, because those values are effectively concealed by America's actions. The ideal circumstances for cooperation will not be realized as long as American civilization remains in perpetual fear of growing weak or losing its hold on the world, and is perpetually concerned with keeping others from developing, especially the nations of the so-called third world.

Islam and Secularism

The signatories to the American paper focused on the necessity of the separation of church and state, and they considered this to be a universal value that all the nations of the Earth should adopt. We Muslims approach the problem of the relationship between religion and the state differently. Our understanding is to protect the will of the majority and their rights while also protecting the rights of the minority. Islam is a comprehensive religion that has specific laws addressing all aspects of life. It is difficult for a nation to be respected and taken seriously by its people in an Islamic environment without adopting the laws of that religion in general. State adoption of the religion does not mean an infringement on the particular needs of the minorities who live within it or their being forced to abandon their religion and embrace Islam. The idea that there is no compulsion in religion is firmly planted in the Muslim mindset and is clearly stated in the Qur'ân. The separation of church and state that the American thinkers are calling to in their letter shows a lack of understanding of how religion acts as a formative basis for culture in Islamic societies. We see secularism as inapplicable to Muslim society, because it denies the members of that society the right to apply the general laws that shape their lives and it violates their will on the pretext of protecting minorities. It does not stand to reason that protecting the rights of the minority should be accomplished by violating the rights of the majority. We see that the real concern of a religious minority is the protection of its rights and not the violation of the rights of the majority, since infringing upon the rights of the majority is not conducive to social stability and peace, whereas the rights of the minority in Muslim society are protected.

We believe that Islam is the truth, though it is not possible for the entire world to be Muslim. It is neither possible for us to force others to think the way we do, nor would Islamic Law allow us to do so if we were able to. This is a personal choice in Islamic Law. The thing that we have to do is explain the message of Islam, which is a guidance and a mercy to all humanity. However, we are not heedless of the necessities brought about by the present state of humanity and of the need to remove the obstacles that prevent people from properly understanding the message of Islam so they can, if they choose, adopt it of their own free will.

The Muslims have the right to adhere to their religion, its values, and its teachings. This is an option that it will be difficult to try and withhold from them. Nevertheless, what we present is a moderate and balanced understanding and go forward to propagate it, and the West shall see that it is very different than the notions that they have about Islam. This is if the West is truly willing to afford us, our religion, and our abilities proper recognition, or at least willing to study the facts of our religion and our values in a rational and objective manner.

Islam is not an enemy of civilization, but it rejects utilizing the notion of civilization for negative ends. Nor is Islam an enemy of human rights and freedoms, but it rejects transforming freedoms and rights into a tool for conflict just as it rejects relying upon a limited cultural vision as if it is a universal law that must be generally applied to all, forcibly if need be. Continuing to insist upon this vision, even if it is depicted as religiously tolerant, is no less extreme than what goes on in those radical religious groups.

Oppressing others necessarily means that a choice in favor of conflict has been made. It is the catalyst that inflames the strength of resistance, which crates conditions where causing injury to others takes little instigation. The West has to realize that destruction is the least technologically dependant product in the world. It can be produced in countless ways. This will give birth to more forms of radicalism within all societies, including those that adopt separation of church and state. Those might actually turn out to be the most proficient practitioners of this type of extremism.

The Just War and Terrorism

The West often speaks of the problem of terrorism and radicalism. In our view, this problem is a serious one for the world and a number of measures must be taken to deal with it. At the same time, we wish to emphasize the following points that appear to us very reasonable:

First, radicalism is not intrinsically tied to religion. Radicalism can take many forms, political, economic, or ideological. These should be given the same level of attention, because they seek to overturn the moral principles and the systems that secure human rights throughout the world.

Also, religious radicalism is not restricted to one particular religion. We admit there are radical elements among Muslims; we are also well aware that every religious persuasion in the world has its radical elements. Those who study religious thought and culture attest to this fact. Therefore, it is both unreasonable and unjust to irrationally push the issue of Islamic radicalism and then take a course of action that will further instigate it without dealing with all forms of radicalism in the world, both religious and otherwise.

Second, while we believe that the world is confronted by terrorism and radicalism in the broad sense that we have just described, we should also consider that there are a host of other problems that the world is facing with respect to rights, freedoms, and basic human needs like education, health, and nutrition. All of these need to be addressed.

We are on the realization that many of the extremist Islamic groups - as they are called - did not want to be that way when they started, but were forced into that category by political or military forces or their media machinery that blocked their access to channels of peaceful expression. Such powers were able to do away with any possible opportunity for moderation and to strike at the rights of people. This is the major cause for the extremism of Islamic movements and groups. We are also on the realization that this same situation is right now occurring under the guise of the Western program known as the War on Terror.

Stability is the basis for rights and freedoms throughout the world. When we deny people stability and force them to live in perpetual anxiety, oppression, and misery, then they become more likely to act in an immoral and unethical manner. Bitter reality is what sets down decisions. Moreover, it is sometimes what shapes people's thoughts. When people wait a long time without their rights being addressed, it becomes highly likely that they will behave in ways that are difficult to predict and that lead to uncertain consequences.

We seriously call upon the West to become more open to Islam, look more seriously at its own programs, and behave more mildly with the Islamic world. We also call upon them to earnestly review their position on Islam and to open channels of dialogue between prominent Islamic thinkers representing the broad current of Islamic thought and intellectuals and decision makers in the West.

It is important for the West to realize that most of the Islamic movements throughout the Muslim world and elsewhere are essentially moderate. It is necessary to maintain this situation. Moderate movements should have their rights respected. Nothing should be allowed to inflame situations for any reason. People need to be able to conduct themselves rationally and with a sense of security.

We are committed to fighting against terrorism, whether it comes from the Muslims or elsewhere. However, as long as the matter is being referred back to moral values, then why not mention other radical extremists? Why not talk about the Palestinians who are exposed, especially in these days, to most loathsome kind of terrorism possible? Their cities and refugee camps are being torn to the ground, mass murder is being carried out against them, and a suffocating siege is being imposed upon their innocent civilians. This is not being carried out by some individuals or secret organizations. It is being executed by the state of Israel, a member of the United Nations.

If the purpose is to pull up terrorism from its roots, then all out war is not the appropriate course of action, but peace and justice is. The world must seek this in Palestine and elsewhere.

Terrorism, according to the restricted meaning that it is being used for today, is but one of the forms of wrongful aggression being carried out against lives and property. It is immoral to focus on one form of aggression and turn a blind eye to all others, even though they might be more destructive and repugnant. This is a clear case of selective vision and double standards

Third, concocting conflicts does no good for either side. Those who represent conflict are not always the best representatives of this faction or that. There is nothing better than justice, consideration of the people's rights and adhering to our moral values to dispel the specter of conflict. These principles must be maintained even in times of war when we are forced to go down that road.

In the West, instigating conflict stems from considering and protecting national - if not partisan - interests, even at the expense of the rights of others. The truth is that this policy is what creates a dangerous threat to national security, not only for the West, but for the entire world, not to mention the tragic and inhuman conditions that it produces.

The men throughout the world who are behind these conflicts are, by their decisions and their policies, preparing the masses to turn against them. We must intelligently monitor their behavior and protect our civil societies and the rights and security of our people. We must realize that having conflict mongers in power around the world will bring about the worst situation possible for the present and for the future generations who will have to face the effects of our personal calculations. Yes, we should be optimistic, but we must also be clear in accounting for our actions and assessing their affects.

Civil security is in a perilous situation throughout the world in the shadow of this scramble to create conflicts and draw up programs for dealing with them. We have to move beyond the slogans and realize that policies of conflict in the West are bringing about the destruction of civil security throughout the world in the name of fighting terrorism. The number of civilian casualties in Afghanistan because of American bombing increases without the American administration showing any kind of strain on its mores and values from its so-called "just war". In reality, it seems like they are merely creating circumstances in order to give a new validation for more confrontations here and there. And if the West considers September 11 as an affront to civil security in the West, then we can share with it that feeling and even the stance of rejecting attacks against civil security throughout the world. But it is important for the West to realize that civil security in the Islamic World has not seen stability for decades and a lot of the impediments to civil security have come about under the umbrella of Western policy and quite possibly due its direct actions.

It is about time we realize that the use of military force or the power of the media provides no real guarantee for the future. Often matters take surprising turns, going off in directions that defy our estimation. It is as if the events of September 11 showed the uncertainty in this estimation.

Therefore, creating more avenues for dialogue and the exchange of ideas where scholars and thinkers can meet with each other is, in our opinion, the alternative to the language of violence and destruction. This is what compels us to write this letter and to participate in this discussion.

Ahmed,

You are exactly the type of person that I was talking about in my post. Oh you believe yourself to be a peaceful person, just as long as anyone doesn't mention the Jews. Historical facts go right out the window because you can't bear to go against your Muslim brethren (the Palestinians).

Why do you care so much about them? What benefit do you get out of supporting people who blow up innocent civilians just because they believe in a different religion? How will it benefit the Middle East to give legitimacy to terrorists? Do you actually think that this will make it a better place to live in? Because if you do, then guess again.

Just because I am Catholic, doesn't mean that I blindly support the Catholics in Ireland who also resort to terrorism. You can be a good Muslim and not support the Palestinians at the same time (contrary to what you have been taught). The Druze Arabs in Israel for instance are Muslim and they serve in the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF).

Until Muslims drop this whole anti-Jewish/anti-Israel rhetoric, there will never be peace in the Middle East. And making Israel cease to exist is not an option. Just accept that the Arabs were a miserable failiure in trying to finish Hitler's job. Imagine what good it would achieve for the world if all Arabs/Muslims and Jews could live in peace side by side. Leave the only Jewish state in existence (a very small one at that) alone and concentrate on fixing the problems in Arab/Muslim countries themselves. Only then will Muslims not be the target of people like Mr Silk.

"You can be a good Muslim and not support the Palestinians at the same time (contrary to what you have been taught). The Druze Arabs in Israel for instance are Muslim and they serve in the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF)"

The Druze aren't Muslim: they're Druze. Their holy books are called the "Kitab Al Hikma". They don't observe the Five Pillars of Islam, don't put much emphasis on the Koran either, don't pray in mosques, don't fast during Ramadan. Therefore they're not Muslim.
 http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/D/Druze.asp

"The United States, in spite of its efforts in establishing the United Nations with its Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other similar institutions, is among the most antagonistic nations to the objectives of these institutions and to the values of justice and truth. This is clearly visible in America's stance on the Palestinian issue and its unwavering support for the Zionist occupation of Palestinian land and its justification of all the Zionist practices that run contrary to the resolutions passed by the United Nations. It is clearly visible in how America provides Israel with the most advanced weapons that they turn against women, children, and old men, and with which they topple down people's homes. At the same time, we see the Bush administration mobilizing its military strength and preparing for war against other countries like Iraq, justifying its actions with the claim that these countries are perpetrating human rights abuses and behaving aggressively towards their neighbors.

This conduct of theirs creates in others a mental image of the United States of America as a nation that respects neither international organizations nor the moral principles upon which democracy rests. ""

Charles,


I have not joined the Devil. I am following the highest truth available to me. I am trying to dispel the illusions that have created the living hell that threatens not just Israelis and Arabs but all of us. I don't pretend to have the whole truth. It has been suppressed and isn't easy to come by. Zionist leaders and Adolph Hitler shared a common interest in making Europe uninhabitable for Jews. They collaborated in transferring German Jews and their property to Palestine. Zionists broke a worldwide Jewish boycott by trading Nazi goods. Zionists let 6000 trained young American Zionists enter Israel rather than accept imperilled European Jews. They were probably responsible for the Allied refusal to accept Jewish refugees and failure to bomb rail tracks to the concentration camps. The evidence suggests they deliberately sacrificed their fellow Jews to create the "moral authority" they needed to usurp Palestine. Read Jewish writer Ben Hecht's book "Perfidy" (1961, p. 218 ff.). Learn how Zionist leaders turned a blind eye to the fate of a million Hungarian Jews. Adolph Eichmann offered to spare them in exchange for 10,000 trucks to be used on the Russian front and 1000 tons of tea and coffee. "Pick [the Jews] anywhere you want," Eichmann said, "Hungary, Auschwitz, Slovakia -- anywhere you want and anyone you want." He was willing to release 100,000 Jews in advance and the rest 10% at a time, on payment. He had authorization from Hitler and Himmler.

Let us read about Jewish Racism towards Non-Jews as expressed in the Talmud Neturei Karta Accepted rabbinical Litature.

"The modern Jew is the product of the Talmud..."

"Babylonian Talmud", published by the Boston Talmud Society, p. XII
The Jews refer to the remainder of Earths inhabitants, the non-Jewish peoples, as "Gentiles", "Goyim". Let's see what the Jewish Talmud teaches the Jews concerning the non-Jewish majority, i.e. those who are not part of Jahve's "Chosen People":

"The Jews are called human beings, but the non-Jews are not humans. They are beasts."

Talmud: Baba Metzia, 114b

"The Akum (non-Jew) is like a dog. Yes, the scripture teaches to honor the the dog more than the non-Jew."

Ereget Rashi Erod. 22 30

"Even though God created the non-Jew they are still animals in human form. It is not becoming for a Jew to be served by an animal. Therfore he will be served by animals in human form."

Midrasch Talpioth, p. 255, Warsaw 1855

"A pregnant non-Jew is no better than a pregnant animal."

Coschen hamischpat 405

"The souls of non-Jews come from impure sprits and are called pigs."

Jalkut Rubeni gadol 12b

"Although the non-Jew has the same body structure as the Jew, they compare with the Jew like a monkey to a human."

Schene luchoth haberith, p. 250 b

"If you eat with a Gentile, it is the same as eating with a dog."

Tosapoth, Jebamoth 94b

"If a Jew has a non-Jewish servant or maid who dies, one should not express sympathy to the Jew. You should tell the Jew: "God will replace 'your loss', just as if one of his oxen or asses had died"."

Jore dea 377, 1

"Sexual intercourse between Gentiles is like intercourse between animals."

Talmud Sanhedrin 74b

"It is permitted to take the body and the life of a Gentile."

Sepher ikkarim III c 25

"It is the law to kill anyone who denies the Torah. The Christians belong to the denying ones of the Torah."

Coshen hamishpat 425 Hagah 425. 5

"A heretic Gentile you may kill outright with your own hands."

Talmud, Abodah Zara, 4b

"Every Jew, who spills the blood of the godless (non-Jews), is doing the same as making a sacrifice to God."

Talmud: Bamidbar Raba c 21 & Yalkut 772

Ahmed,

Here is a rebuttal to every single one of those references you gave:

 http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Cyprus/8815/qts.html

Where did you get those quotes from? Because apparently it seems to be from one main source and other sites which say the same thing copy the information from that source. You really shouldn't accept things as fact without checking out for yourself to see if it is true. I admit that I haven't read most of the Koran, but of the claims that I did hear about the Koran, I actually went and checked them out for myself to verify them. And low and behold, there are many instances of intolerance and racism towards "non-believers" set out in the Koran. Are you going to deny the fact that Mohammed slaughtered many innocent Arabs and Jews just because they wouldn't accept him as their prophet? How can you say that Muslims today who murder and kill innocent people today are just extreme fanatics who are not true Muslims, when in fact they are just doing the same things Mohammed did?

As for the person who said that the Druze are not "real" Muslims, that is irrelevant. Whether or not you consider them true Muslims or not, the point I made still stands. Take Walid Shoebat for instance who was a former Palestinian terrorist, but is now a proud supporter of Israel:

 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3430077.stm

He converted to Christianity, but that doesn't mean that you have to convert to be pro-Israel. Being pro-Israel does not mean just ignoring the plight of the Palestinians. They too deserve to live in peace, but not at Israel's expense. The Arabs have more than enough land and Jerusalem is not theirs. Mecca and Medina belongs to Islam. Jerusalem belongs to the Jews, and to a lesser extent Christians. Under Israeli rule, people of all religions will be able to visit the Holy Land. Under Arab occupation, it will be the usual rule of take as much as you can in the name of Islam and don't compromise to the "non-believers". They tried to do the same to India, but the brave Hindus drove them back (but not without a massive genocide against Hindus taking place under the banner of Islam). You stay on your holy land and we Christians and Jews and people of other religions will stay on ours. You want to take part or all of Jerusalem? Then give us part or all of Mecca. Don't like it? I thought as much.

Be reasonable and understand that other religions have just as much right as yours to exist.