This has made my friday,


:)

haha!

what an absolute idiot.

Apart from anything else, how deeply ignorant do you have to be to suggest the Arab world haven't 'contributed anything' to world culture? Presumably maths, astronomy, engineering and, er, written language itself don't count. Perhaps Kilroy can use his now free time to read some history?

to know that this mysoginist, patronising, arrogant, wannabe-butcompletelyfailingatit-ladiesman will not be part of my daily digest of daytime tv anymore. i hope it stays that way.

It dismays me to see again the lax monitoring of columns and opinion. This article appered over six months ago now the express reprint it and the BBC are disguste dof Sheperds bush. Hey anyone noticed the crusader on the express I had never realised it was literal.

as i have just found out that Jim Davidson is on the bbc tonight!!!!

hasn't he made one or two racist remarks in his time?

Hopefully the BBC will not allow this racist moron to return - I for one do not want my licence fee to pay for Robert Kilroy-Silk's Nazi-like propaganda.

More info:

Is the BBC backing hate?

 http://www.iacn.org.uk/news/alerts/060104a.htm

"We know what action the BBC would take if Kilroy’s article had been anti-Jewish or anti-Black. This is an ideal opportunity for the BBC to show that it considers all forms of racism as equally abhorrent. Anything other than the termination of Kilroy’s contract would tantamount to implying that the Arab race is less worthy of fair treatment"

The Kilroy affair reminds me of an earlier case of BBC-related racism.

In April 2002, Tom Paulin, who is a regular co-presenter on the BBC's Late Review, gave an interview to a London based newspaper called Al Ahram in which he said that: "Jewish settlers should be shot dead. I think they are Nazis, racists. I have nothing but hatred for them".

I'm curious whether Danger, who is understandably concerned about public figures who, through their naive public pronouncements, 'might incite racial hatred', was equally outraged by Mr. Paulin's comments. Did Danger - or any of the other posters now celebrating Kilroy's dismissal - condemn Paulin's racist rant. Did any of them protest when the BBC refused to issue a statement denouncing one of their employees who had actually recommended that an entire group of people 'should be shot dead'?

Not only did Paulin refuse to apologise for his statements, but the BBC refused to criticise him in any way, and he contined appearing on Late Review as if nothing had ever happened.

Why Kilroy and not Paulin? At least Kilroy didn't suggest that we actually 'kill' Arabs.

On another note...

Kilroy's comments about the lack of Arab contribution to world culture was referring to
modern Arab society - not to the Arabs of 8th to 15th centuries - and in this sense his comments were perhaps painful, but accurate. He was merely asking the an undeniably anti-Western Arab world, 'What have you done for us lately?'. But perhaps Historian can prove me wrong by providing a top ten list of Arab achievements (in Art, Science, Mathematics, etc.), over the past 500 years.

buzzbee

Actually Tom Paulin said that he thought "American-born Jewish settlers in Israel" should be shot dead. Not Israelis, or Jews, but one specific group of settlers. He believed that it was criminal that native-born Palestinians should be shot, harassed and bulldozed to make way for people born on the other side of the world, including US converts to Judaism who have no historic connection whatsoever to Israel or Palestine, and with no historic or moral claim to the land whatsoever.

That's not racist. You can of course argue the point over whether shooting the offenders is morally or legally justifiable. Certainly I think it was inappropriate for Paulin as the show's presenter to be saying this publicly on the show. But it wasn't racist, and the two events are not comparable in my opinion.

Unlike Tom Paulin's remark, which is widely quoted by the right-wing press without noting that he was talking about American-born settlers only, we can see the full text of Kilroy's article in print, which the Sunday Express chose to print twice.

Arabs are the reason we have knowledge we possess today in chemistry, mathematics, astronomy and medicine. Infact they were still using Arabic manuscripts to teach medicine at Oxford University only 200 years ago. They also made contributions to music, poetry, architecture and preserved and built upon the ancient knowledge of the Greeks for the West. The reason why the Arab world has gone into "stagnation" recently, is due to the occupations of their lands, primarily by the Turks in the 1500's to the 1900's, who treated their co-religionists as second class citizens and as an inferior race, and in the last 100 years the occupation of Arab lands by "israel", USA, France and Britain. They do therefore have valid reasons to be anti-western, namely because of the theft of their wealth (oil) by the West and due to the fact that the corrupt tyrannical anti-Islamic regimes in the Middle East are propped up and financed by the West, for example in Egypt, Jordan, Libya, Iraq, Yemen, Morroco and Algeria, to name a few. The dictators that we sponsor have one job to do- to keep the Arab people from rising up against "israel" and the US occupiers, to keep them in abject poverty, to keep them in confusion about their religion (by using "al qaeda" mossad/CIA agents and by fake religious "experts") and to prevent them from taking back their place as the beacons of human advancement. Arabs however will continue to seek knowledge for the sake of God and humanity,as is evident by the Arabs that have emigrated to the West and have managed to contribute greatly to a wide range of fields.

How much was ex- politician Kiljerk paid
by his pals at the new lab of spin...?
the article was an mistakenly sent uncensored version...
yeah! right...
the beeb were probably going to drop him anyway!!!

this kind of thing only helps to make the politicians
[+ media presenters / spokespeople / celebs - who-ever can gain...] appear
like reasonabnle people...
especailly by polarizing themselves against the BNP...

after
scare stories on immigration...asylum...[islamic] terrorism
contantly neuro-linguistically programmed...[linked together]


media psyops is all about action and re-action

the papers/radio talkshows/ daytime bull
can all be filled up with 'reasonable reactions'
from pricks who voted for war [er...invasion...sorry]...
and sheepishly agree with the Blair Blunkett junketts
immigration / asylum / Terror scam.
this is one of many vote settlers for many back benchers,
as the build up to the election gathers pace.

...and, like the Diana story / inquest...it conveniently
directs attention from HUTTON...

 http://www.wardrobe.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/words/murder/spin_genocide/

questions:

the 'republicans' in NEWLAB spinco want a presidency and the queen is gone...?
[something that i'm not against...we might get a constitution!]
thus Diana is dug up...[not literally, yet, anyway!!!]
so does the queen hates the Blair monster?
did she pull strings to instigate Hutton inquiry?

stupid little minor celebs [kilroy-prick]with astonishingly
un-educated views...
for all the work he's supposedly done...
even presenting that dross he's met and heard veiws from all sorts/angles...

i find it hard to beleive he would beleive it...
but i do beleive he seig heils to the party still...

cw

Mike,

If you really want to split hairs about what Paulin really said then you should at least get your facts straight. He did not say, as you quote, that "American-born Jewish settlers in Israel" should be shot dead.

Here is the exact wording from the original article:

"If there is one thing Paulin clearly abhors about Israel, it is the Brooklyn--born Jewish settlers: 'They should be shot dead," he says forcefully. "I think they are Nazis, racists, I feel nothing but hatred for them.'"

But the fact that he said 'Brooklyn-born Jewish settlers' as opposed to 'American-born Jewish settlers' is as irrelevant a point as the one that you seem to be trying to make: that by singling out a 'specific group of settlers', rather than directing his comments at all Jewish settlers, Paulin is somehow innocent of any intolerant or incitefull behaviour.

In other words, according to your logic, if Kilroy had directed his comments not at the entire 'Arab world', but at a specific Arab group that had engaged in actions which he dissapproved of - for example, British-born Islamic extremists - then he would be innocent of any wrong-doing.

For example, if he had said: "As far as those British-born Muslims who support terrorism,
criticise our Government, and call for the establishment of an Islamic state - I have nothing but hatred for them and I think they should all be shot dead".

If I understand you correctly, the above statement would not be racist, and would, in fact, be perfectly acceptable, because Kilroy would have directed his comments only at 'British born Muslims' as opposed to all Muslims.

But of course that is not the case. It is never acceptable to make a sweeping statement of hatred and a call for the death of any group of people - no matter how much one disagrees with their actions or beliefs.

I assume, and hope, you object to the Chinese occupation of Tibet. But would you defend someone who said that they hated all Chinese people (or British-born Chinse people) who resided in Tibetan territory and hoped that they would all be shot dead?

And yet you clearly have no problem with what Paulin said - only that he said it 'publicly' which was 'innapropriate for the show's presenter'. Above all, you insist that his comments were in no way racist. Well let's see:

The definition of 'Racism' is: "Discrimination or prejudice based on race".

And the dictionary definition of 'Race' is: "A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution". Clearly, 'American-born Jewish settlers' would qualify under this definition.

Thus when Paulin said he 'had nothing but hatred' and hoped for the death of an entire group of people whom he defined soley by their religion and nationality, he was making a textbook racist statement. Ironically, the fact that he singles out 'Brooklyn-born Jewish settlers' actually makes his comment more racially inflammatory because he is inviting us to vent our hatred and violence against a very specific group of people with very specific characteristics.

Again, which comment sounds less like a general reactionary rant and more like premeditated and potentially dangerous real-life racism: "I think all Muslims should be shot dead", or "I think all British-born Muslims should be shot dead"?

The demagoguery is in the detail.

Incredibly, you suggest that their was some sort of 'right-wing media' conspiracy because they failed to 'note that Paulin was talking about American-born settlers' only'. (Funny, you left out his 'Jewish' specification'). In other words, you truly believe that if Paulin had called for the death of 'all' Jewish/Israeli settlers he would perhaps have been in the wrong - or at least the world would have had a right to condemn him - but by limiting his death-wish to merely 'Brooklyn-born Jewish settlers', he was expressing a perfectly reasonable and rational desire, and one that the world would easily understand and accept. But wouldn't you know it: once again it was all the right-wing media's fault.

Paulin and Palestine: professional victims till the end.

buzzbee

The analogies you attempt to make are false.

Paulin would have been racist if he was talking about all Jewish settlers. He was not.

You compare his condemnation to a condemnation of all Chinese settlers in Tibet. The Chinese make a historic claim on Tibet, citing borders and history etc. I happen to disagree with it, but that's beside the point.

A better comparison would be if a group of Mexican converts to a Mayan religion, with no historic connection to Tibet whatsoever, unearthed an ancient religious document stating that Mayans lived in Tibet before the present-day Tibetans, and on this basis invaded, shot and bulldozed the Tibetans out of the way to make room for their new Mayan state in Tibet, then blamed China for not taking in the refugees, and called the Tibetan refugees "terrorists" if they attacked the Mayans to get their homes back.

If Tom Paulin said that this group deserved to be shot, I would disagree with him there too, but it would not be on the grounds of racism.

>The definition of 'Racism' is: "Discrimination or prejudice based on race".
>
>And the dictionary definition of 'Race' is: "A group of people united or classified
>together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution".
>Clearly, 'American-born Jewish settlers' would qualify under this definition.

It would, if he were proposing to shoot them on the basis of their American-ness or their Jewishness. He is not. He is not proposing to shoot Americans in general, or to shoot Jewish settlers in general. He is proposing to shoot one group of people whom he says are claiming a historic involvement that they have nothing to do with. It's their actions he's objecting too, not their origin.

Americans, having little history of their own, love to get involved in the politics of other nations on this basis: in Northern Ireland, in Israel, in Serbia, etc., places which neither they nor their parents or grandparents have ever set foot. They should not be surprised that others see the matter somewhat differently.

buzzbee wrote:

Here is the exact wording from the original article:
"If there is one thing Paulin clearly abhors about Israel, it is the Brooklyn--born Jewish settlers: 'They should be shot dead," he says forcefully. "I think they are Nazis, racists, I feel nothing but hatred for them.'"



then tom paulin didn't say "brooklyn-born", the al-ahram journalist did. read it again.

all paulin said was "they". you're putting words in his mouth, or maybe al-ahram are cuase you dont really know what question they asked him at the time.

A quick search on Google yields the following:

- Dr. Edward Said, award-winning Palestinian writer
- Dr. Shihab Ghanem, renowned Arabic poet and translator
- Dr. Hussam A. Fadhi, award-winning sculptor
- Khalil Gibran, renowned writer and artist
- Karim Rashid - award-winning artist
- Naomi Shihab Nye - award-winning poet and author
- Zaha Hadid, Iraqi-born, first woman to design major American art museum
- Dr. Essam Al Mallah, UNESCO award for international music 2002
- Dr. Ahmad Zaweel, Nobel prize for Chemistry 1992
- Dr. Najib Mahfooz, Nobel prize for Literature 1988
- Dr. Elias Corey - Nobel prize for Chemistry 1990
- Dr. Peter Medawar - Nobel prize for Medicine 1960
- Dr. Ferid Mourad - Nobel prize for Medicine 1998


I also think Al Jazeera is an impressive achievement: non-Arabic speakers flooded their English web site during the war, because the coverage there was so much better than what they were getting at home.

I'd like to thank Jonathan for supplying a list of major Arab cultural contributions in the 20th century. I'd like to add another bit of information that might shed some more light on the subject. In involves the number of Nobel Prizes awarded to two different groups: ARAB/ISLAMIC NOBEL WINNERS versus JEWISH NOBEL WINNERS.

From a pool of 1.4 BILLION Muslims
20% of World's Population - 2 out of every 10 people.

ARAB/ISLAMIC NOBEL WINNERS

Literature
1988 - Najib Mahfooz 1988.

Peace
1978 - Anwar El-Sadat
1994 - Yasser Arafat
2003 - Shirin Ebadi

Chemistry
1999 - Ahmed Zewail
1990 - Elias James Corey

Medicine
1960 - Peter Brian Medawar
1998 - Ferid Mourad

Physics
Abdus Salam

TOTAL OF 9 WINNERS


JEWISH NOBEL WINNERS
From a pool of 12 million Jews
.2% of the World's Population - 2 out of every 1,000 people.

Literature

1910 - Paul Heyse
1927 - Henri Bergson
1958 - Boris Pasternak
1966 - Shmuel Yosef Agnon
1966 - Nelly Sachs
1976 - Saul Bellow
1978 - Isaac Bashevis Singer
1981 - Elias Canetti
1987 - Joseph Brodsky
1991 - Nadine Gordimer
2002 - Imre Kertesz

World Peace

1911 - Alfred Fried
1911 - Tobias Asser
1968 - Rene Cassin
1973 - Henry Kissinger
1978 - Menachem Begin
1986 - Elie Wiesel
1994 - Shimon Peres
1994 - Yitzhak Rabin
1995 - Joseph Rotblat

Chemistry

1905 - Adolph Von Baeyer
1906 - Henri Moissan
1910 - Otto Wallach
1915 - Richard Willstaetter
1918 - Fritz Haber
1943 - George Charles de Hevesy
1961 - Melvin Calvin
1962 - Max Ferdinand Perutz
1972 - William Howard Stein
1972 - C.B. Anfinsen
1977 - Ilya Prigogine
1979 - Herbert Charles Brown
1980 - Paul Berg
1980 - Walter Gilbert
1981 - Ronald Hoffmann
1982 - Aaron Klug
1985 - Herbert A. Hauptman
1985 - Jerome Karle
1986 - Dudley R. Herschbach
1988 - Robert Huber
1989 - Sidney Altman
1992 - Rudolph Marcus
1998 - Walter Kohn
2000 - Alan J. Heeger

Economics

1970 - Paul Anthony Samuelson
1971 - Simon Kuznets
1972 - Kenneth Joseph Arrow
1973 - Wassily Leontief
1975 - Leonid Kantorovich
1976 - Milton Friedman
1978 - Herbert A. Simon
1980 - Lawrence Robert Klein
1985 - Franco Modigliani
1987 - Robert M. Solow
1990 - Harry Markowitz
1990 - Merton Miller
1992 - Gary Becker
1993 - Rober Fogel
1994 - John Harsanyi
1994 - Reinhard Selten
1997 - Robert Merton
1997 - Myron Scholes
2001 - George Akerlof
2001 - Joseph Stiglitz
2002 - Daniel Kahneman

Medicine

1908 - Elie Metchnikoff
1908 - Paul Erlich
1914 - Robert Barany
1922 - Otto Meyerhof
1930 - Karl Landsteiner
1931 - Otto Warburg
1936 - Otto Loewi
1944 - Joseph Erlanger
1944 - Herbert Spencer Gasser
1945 - Ernst Boris Chain
1946 - Hermann Joseph Muller
1950 - Tadeus Reichstein
1952 - Selman Abraham Waksman
1953 - Hans Krebs
1953 - Fritz Albert Lipmann
1958 - Joshua Lederberg
1959 - Arthur Kornberg
1964 - Konrad Bloch
1965 - Francois Jacob
1965 - Andre Lwoff
1967 - George Wald
1968 - Marshall W. Nirenberg
1969 - Salvador Luria
1970 - Julius Axelrod
1970 - Sir Bernard Katz
1972 - Gerald Maurice Edelman
1975 - David Baltimore
1975 - Howard Martin Temin
1976 - Baruch S. Blumberg
1977 - Rosalyn Sussman Yalow
1977 - Andrew V. Schally
1978 - Daniel Nathans
1980 - Baruj Benacerraf
1984 - Cesar Milstein
1985 - Michael Stuart Brown
1985 - Joseph L. Goldstein
1986 - Stanley Cohen [& Rita Levi-Montalcini]
1988 - Gertrude Elion
1989 - Harold Varmus
1991 - Erwin Neher
1991 - Bert Sakmann
1993 - Richard J. Roberts
1993 - Phillip Sharp
1994 - Alfred Gilman
1994 - Martin Rodbell
1995 - Edward B. Lewis
1997 - Stanley B. Prusiner
1998 - Robert F. Furchgott
2000 - Eric R. Kandel
2002 - Sydney Brenner
2002 - Robert H. Horvitz

Physics

1907 - Albert Abraham Michelson
1908 - Gabriel Lippmann
1921 - Albert Einstein
1922 - Niels Bohr
1925 - James Franck
1925 - Gustav Hertz
1943 - Gustav Stern
1944 - Isidor Issac Rabi
1945 - Wolfgang Pauli
1952 - Felix Bloch
1954 - Max Born
1958 - Igor Tamm
1958 - Il'ja Mikhailovich
1958 - Igor Yevgenyevich
1959 - Emilio Segre
1960 - Donald A. Glaser
1961 - Robert Hofstadter
1962 - Lev Davidovich Landau
1963 - Eugene P. Wigner
1965 - Richard Phillips Feynman
1965 - Julian Schwinger
1967 - Hans Albrecht Bethe
1969 - Murray Gell-Mann
1971 - Dennis Gabor
1972 - Leon N. Cooper
1973 - Brian David Josephson
1975 - Benjamin Mottleson
1976 - Burton Richter
1978 - Arno Allan Penzias
1978 - Peter L Kapitza
1979 - Stephen Weinberg
1979 - Sheldon Glashow
1988 - Leon Lederman
1988 - Melvin Schwartz
1988 - Jack Steinberger
1990 - Jerome Friedman
1992 - Georges Charpak
1995 - Martin Perl
1995 - Frederick Reines
1996 - David M. Lee
1996 - Douglas D. Osheroff
1997 - Claude Cohen-Tannoudji
2000 - Zhores I. Alferov
2003 - Vitaly Ginsburg
2003 - Alexei Abrikosov

TOTAL OF 161 NOBEL WINNERS

There are a mere 12 Million Jews in the entire world yet they have received 161 Nobel Prizes. The Arab/Islamic world numbers 1.4 Billion, or 117 times the number of Jews, and yet they've only managed to garner 9 nobel prizes (including on to Yassar Arafat for 'peace').

Tom Paulin might be interested to know that some of the Jews listed above are actually 'Brooklyn-born' - but don't hold that against them.

So what does it all mean? Oh, probably nothing...probably just another right-wing, zio-capitalist conspiracy...

buzzbee

Peace awards, what a joke!

Kissinger, a mass murderer who was responsible for the death of 4 million vietnamese and cambodians.

Begin, a Mass murderer responsible for the death of hundreds of thousands of Arabs.

Wiesel, president of a terrorist,racist state.

Peres, responsible for the massacre at Qana, Lebanon, with the murder of hundreds of Lebanese women and children and UN personnel.

Rabin, killed by Jews, for wanting peace.

Perhaps the Arabs are too busy fighting off the brutal zionist Nazi occupation of Palestine to be worried about awards? Perhaps all the so-called "Islamic" (as you see them) states are too busy wondering why the zionist occupied US keeps attacking them for oil while "justifying" the genocide of their citizens by blaming corrupt leaders they installed, armed and maintained?

Pay $10000 per barrel of oil then lets see who gets ahead ...

Its not hard to get ahead when you steal other peoples land and treat them like slaves (or even like animals as the zionist Nazi "settlers"/IDF do to the Palestinians) ...

Congratulations to all those people listed for their accomplishments - Muslim or Jew. Screw the zionist scum - burn in hell you racial supremacists. This is not a contradiction unless you fall for the zionist lies that all Jews are zionists. Take a good look at "israel" - is this really the "promised land"? Is this what god told the Jews to do? Create an apartheid "state" to rival South Africa!? I doubt it - this is a 50 year old zionist occupation of Palestine and may it end soon so that Jews, Muslims and Christians can live in peace in Palestine again.


More about "israel" (the zionist entity occupying Palestine):

 http://www.israel-state-terrorism.org

The difference between Jews and zionists:

 http://www.jewsNOTzionists.org
 http://www.nkUSA.org

buzzbee seems to think that the brief list of Arab contributions I gave is comprehensive, and that by copying and pasting a longer list from this Zionist site:
 http://www.masada2000.org/nobel.html

...he has somehow gainsaid what I posted. But the fact remains, Arabs have made and still do make substantial contributions to the fields of culture and science, and Kilroy was wrong.

This might explain why he's made such a grovelling public apology for his earlier ignorance. Perhaps that will be enough to save his glittering career in disposable daytime chat, which will endure as his own outstanding contribution to British culture. So proud to be British...

I'd rather have an assholes opinion in clear view than a genocidal government policy writ large
Clearly Kilroy is a racist
So what? He's only talking the shit
Others are mass murdering and child-killing for the hell of it with manipulated reasons
Let this little smarm-freak put his opinions all over the network
The real harm's done elsewhere and he's just the kind of dupe they need to divert opinion from the real life or death stuff

He is an ignorant nazi to make comments like that. He is always biased in his chat shows and treats some of the audience with contempt. He is way too unprofessional to be a TV chat show host and after these comments should rightly be sacked.

Oh no this silver hared man has been suspended from the bbc.....what was he doing on that stupid show for anyway. Lets make him priminister! At last someone is speaking up for the British people. Here's looking forward to the downfall of this awfull Labour government!