Kilroy-Silk and racism

Posted by: DAVOhorn on 10 January 2004

So the PC Minority have got upset at an article in a newspaper.

Funny it was published previously but no complaints.

Anyway He used the term ARABS.

So who starts shouting and screaming, the Muslim Council.

He did not state Muslims which is a religion and not a racial group.

There are Arab Jews,Arab Christians and Arab Muslims.

I presume that the Muslim Council identified themselves with this presumed prejudicial statement and were thus offended.

Funny they dont sem to protest at the offensive racial and religious material put out by some of the more extreme Mullahs in London and other major towns.

Oh yeah i forgot only white anglo saxons are racist and every body else is justified in their prejudice as they are a minority.

The CRE also are very outspoken on this but again they ARE SELECTIVE IN WHAT AND WHO OFFENDS THEIR SENSIBILITIES.

If we are to have true tolerance then all peoples regardles of race must learn to live in harmony and respect.

One question, if many Muslims find life in the UK so objectionable why do they not live in a MUSLIM Country where their way of life is the norm?

I presume they seek Asylum here as we are generally a tolerant society and allow people to live how they chose as long as it is within the law.

I hope this post is read in the manner it was posted.

regards David
Posted on: 14 January 2004 by Don Atkinson
So I suppose Stephen is actually being quite moderate in that he is only calling for the invasion of one country.

For once we all seem to be agreed.

Cheers

Don

PS on second thoughts, I don't think it would be in the best interest of the region itself, or the rest of the world, to invade Saudi. The government is reasonably stable, the (alleged) attrocities aren't too overt or excessive and this lends a stabalising influence to the rest of the region. Destabalising Saudi would throw the whole oil industry into disarray, and the region depends on selling its oil for its well being. I think diplomatic pressure on Saudi to moderate its human rights issues just a shade more, would be a better policy.
Posted on: 14 January 2004 by Berlin Fritz
Well that's alright then isn't it Chaps ? I'm off down the pub to get a decent well earned breakfast.
Fritz Von Ican'tbelieveyouguyssometimes
Posted on: 14 January 2004 by Don Atkinson
Fritz,

Only sometimes?

Cheers

Don
Posted on: 14 January 2004 by Phil Barry
Sorry, the Saudi government allows its dissidents to take out their frustrations by preaching anti-Jewish and anti-Western poison in vast, intense quantities.

Saudi Arabia IS a big problem.

Phil
Posted on: 14 January 2004 by matthewr
Don,

No its a serious and worsening problem in France culminating in a big outcry late last year when a Jewish school was firebombed. Lots of info out there waiting to be Googled.

There's a similar -- and arguably much worse -- situation happening in Northern Ireland where (predominantly) Loyalist gangs are using violence and intimidation in what appears to be an attempt to "ethnically cleanse" certain areas. See here for more. (You know if one read too much of that sort of thing, and were a racist bigot, one might be inclined to write an article entitled "What Have The Northern Irish Ever Done For Us?")

Matthew

PS Sounds like you need to read a better newspaper that covers these sorts of issues. Have you considered the Guardian? Wink
Posted on: 14 January 2004 by matthewr
Phil said "Sorry, the Saudi government allows its dissidents to take out their frustrations by preaching anti-Jewish and anti-Western poison in vast, intense quantities"

Although the slight problem with deposing the regime and installing democracy would end up with these dissendents in power. Its a fundemental problem for the Neo-Cons.

But I would agree that SA is a big problem and harldy a regime we can be proud of being friends with and arming to the teeth.

Matthew
Posted on: 14 January 2004 by John C
In what way are the Northern Irish not "us"? I was under the impression they were all UK citizens?

John

I read that story with despair on Saturday
Posted on: 14 January 2004 by matthewr
John,

You are of course right. Any prospective Kilroy-Silk's would have had to use the rather grammatically confusing title "What Have We Ever Done For Us".

Matthew
Posted on: 14 January 2004 by Don Atkinson
"What Have The Northern Irish Ever Done For Us (recently)

appart from fight in a couple of world wars, build a few ships (Ok, Ok, perhaps the Titanic wasn't one of their better ones) and a few Short's Skyvans, and .........

This could be an endless thread....

Cheers

Don
Posted on: 14 January 2004 by John C
Does anyone have comparative figures for beheadings/behandings etc in Arab countries versus executions in lets say the state of Texas over the last 5 years?

John

Seamus Heaney
Paul Muldoon
Brian Friel
Posted on: 14 January 2004 by ErikL
There have been 150 executions in Texas since January '99.

Is someone going to drop a bomb on Austin and if so can we get NAIMGAIM out first?
Posted on: 14 January 2004 by matthewr
Perhaps with subtotals to indicate how many of the executed were mentally retarded in some way.

Matthew
Posted on: 14 January 2004 by Steve Toy
quote:
Steven Toy, when you say that you agree with the statement "shouldn't the destruction of the despotic, barbarous and corrupt Arab states and their replacement by democratic governments be a war aim?", what exactly are you agreeing with / suggesting should happen?


I made my position clear on this earlier in this thread:

quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can condone it all you want Steve. But don't put words in my mouth and don't think everybody's logic is the same as yours.

I don't condone any of the above and the fact that you do makes me sick. But you're entitled to your opinion and I respect that.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I don't condone Shariah laws one bit. If it were feasible for the Western military powers to go through every nation practising Shariah law without the obvious adverse consequences for world stability and loss of innocent life, I'd be for it.


By that I mean every nation practising Shariah law not just the Arab states.

Regards,

Steve.
Posted on: 15 January 2004 by Simon Perry
Who'd have thought that RKS could cause so many postings on the Naim message board? And I bet he's got a B&O system at home too.
Posted on: 15 January 2004 by matthewr
"By that I mean every nation practising Shariah law not just the Arab states"

Well that would be Saudi Arabia (Arab and Sharia) and Iran (non-Arab and Sharia). So you are now up to two which still makes you a relative moderate by Neocon standards.

That's assuming you are just going for countries practising the glamourous headline punishments (Hadd) such as stoning and beheading. If you extend your definition of practising Sharia to, say, those countries that use it to sort out inheritance tax then you can probably bomb somewhere as innocuous as Bahrain.

Matthew
Posted on: 15 January 2004 by Steve Toy
And then there is Sudan.

That takes the tally up to three; one Arab Shariah, and two non-Arab Shariah states.

Regards,

Steve.
Posted on: 16 January 2004 by Berlin Fritz
Not forgetting slavery of course in Africa's largest country.

Fritz Von Backonthechaingang
Posted on: 16 January 2004 by Steve Toy
Now while we are at it, let's see the BBC be stripped of its rights to leech its revenue from anyone and everyone just owning a TV.



Regards,

Steve.
Posted on: 17 January 2004 by Simon Perry
Steven,
Regarding your comments on the BBC. You're joking right? Or do you like adverts and rampant product placement? I agree the BBC has lots its way a bit lately, but I think it does an excellent job.
Simon
Posted on: 17 January 2004 by Steve Toy
Simon I am not serious but I do believe that the BBC should be accountable to public opinion when it is spending public money. It is ok being aloof and arrogant if it's your own money.



Regards,

Steve.
Posted on: 17 January 2004 by andy c
quote:
Now while we are at it, let's see the BBC be stripped of its rights to leech its revenue from anyone and everyone just owning a TV.

Yeah, and whilst we are at it subject everone to adverts and Sky. Big Grin

I agree with Simon on this one - the Beeb have wandered a little off course, but they still provide an above average service - including Radio as well as TV lest we not forget.
Posted on: 17 January 2004 by Mick P
If the Licience fee was scrapped, the BBC would have to rely on advertising to generate income.

This has been studied time and time again and let me assure you that both ITV and Sky are both against the scrapping of the TV licience.

There is simply not enough advertising revenue to split amongst the BBC as well as the independant companies. It is accepted that the only way for survival would be an increased level of cheap game shows and old imported shows on all channels to compensate for the reduced income.

The current system works well, in the sense that both the BBC and ITV are able to generate a decent income that allows the production of good quality shows.

These shows are purchased by Sky and the other independants at a later date and then shown by them.

I agree that there should be more public accountibilty by the BBC and I think that is a more important issue that how it is funded.

Regards

Mick
Posted on: 17 January 2004 by Paul Ranson
We could live without the BBC in its present form. I don't really see providing light entertainment as a public service. And their news and current affairs coverage has seriously deteriorated in the last 10 years.

If the BBC were erased from the schedules what would happen? I don't think I'd notice.

Paul
Posted on: 17 January 2004 by Don Atkinson
The BBC

I thought Steve's point was about choice

Those who want to use the BBC services PAY for them (eg a license, or a Sky-type of access device). Those who don't want to use the service, don't pay.

Why should BBC users be subsidised by the yobs that watch footie and Coronation Street?

Cheers

Don
Posted on: 17 January 2004 by Paul Ranson
I'd be quite happy not to subscribe to the BBC. Any decent programmes will end up on another channel that I am paying for sooner or later.

Paul