Kilroy Taken off air

[Cyfr]

If it gets taken off air, this will be the best day of my life. I hate the Kilory show more than anything i've ever seen on tv.

Ever watched Jenny Jones on sky1? Some american trisha oO

 

[babs]

Dammit, every time I look in this forum I keep thinking it says 'Kirby taken off air'. I'd love to have the pink chap presenting daytime TV.

 

[Cyfr]

Could just imagine it.. 'My dad killed my Boyfriend'
Then a closeup shot of smily kirby

 

[Mellow]

Christ they 13 years old at Crawley? They should use the Croydon Face-Lift Mothers - only 12yrs old and have 4 kids in tow, each a different race

Yeah but it's funny. Knowing that "we" have the general intelligence to avoid getting into that situation, while others can't seem to help themselves. (due to strange cicumstances no doubt)

 

[00dave]

Not that I agree with his views it does annoy me that they only take away peoples right to freedom of speech when they are white and speaking against other races. It's like they're trying to even things up for the past few hundred years before making political correctness work both ways.

Just think how many Islamic preachers there are in this country sharing their views on the west in public, very rarely do they get turfed out, they may not be popular TV show presenters but then again neither in Kilroy.

 

[tRoG]

I avoid chat shows like the plague, and, as such, couldn't care less about what happens to him.

I do think that this entire anti-racism thing that's been going around for the last couple of years is a bit much, though.

 

[Stazbumpa]

Staz's tuppence/

Dare I say it, but Kilroy actually has half a point. What he has done is put it VERY badly. Lets look at the Arab nations, and lets also look at all nations where they have a theocratic Islamic government.
Need I list even the very basic human rights abuses carried out in those countries? Or shall we forget those and move on to the very LARGE human rights abuses? Public executions? Mass repression? Look at Saddams government and how he did things, and that wasn't even supposed to be a theocracy either.
The fact is that they DO repress women and they DO stick two fingers up to even very basic human rights. The truth does indeed hurt.
I would like to say that Islam is not a violent religion or extremist or has designs on the end of the western way of life, but to be honest with you, I have no idea now, any more than I know what Christianity is about these days.
All I ever see or read is images and words of firebrands denouncing the west and wanting to (I believe this quote belongs to that Sheik Abu Hamza tosser) "put the star of Islam above No 10 Downing Street". When that is the only thing you see, what the hell are we supposed to think?

A very clever muslim lady once said that Islam and, in particular Islamic goverments, will always be feared and loathed until they go through their equivilant of the Reformation, because until they do Islam will always remain in the dark ages and consequently any country governed by it will effectively be stuck in 630 AD.

Anyway, before the screams of rascist start being lobbed at me, I will say that from personal experience I've only ever met good people that follow Islam. Like I said before, I have no idea other than what I see and read what Islam is about anymore, but good people will do good things, so hopefully one day, the Islamic goverments will be populated by similarly good people and all this madness will stop.

Ok flamers, I've said my peice, so I'm ready for you!!!

/Staz's tuppence


PS: I agree, Kilroy et al is retarted TV.

PPS: If admin find this to be inflammatory then
a: sorry
and b: I hope I put things better than Kilroy did

 

[Bullitt]

Which considering they gave us maths, cities, one of the worlds great religions and were the only shining light of rational thought throughout the entire dark ages

That being all well and good, that was then; this is now. Agreed his views are offensive and fucking stupid tbh but surely a nation can't avoid any slander because it did something 'in the dark ages' or whenever.

"Hey you can't say that! Right give us back Maths! *strop*"

 

[xane]

Lets look at the Arab nations, and lets also look at all nations where they have a theocratic Islamic government.

Theocracy itself does not necessarily lead to bad government, what I find very surprizing is the willingness of people to fully accept many Islamic Arab countries for what they really are - a nationalistic regime with facist tendancies.

Islam is only a sideshow, most of the nationalistic countries in the ME (pre-invasion Iraq, modern Syria, 1980's Iran, 1970's Egypt) merely suckered up to religion as a way of bolstering support, but their governments were only interesting in expanding their national identity through land and material acquisition, no different to Hilter's Germany or Milosevic's Serbia, or Mugabe's Zimbabwe or Gadaffi's Libya.

Many Arab countries were founded at the same time as the new post-WW1 european governments, including Italy, Germany and Russia. The emergent force at the time was oppressive nationalism which spawned rapidly in the poor economic environment, and ultimately lead to WW2. Nationalism filled the post-colonial void elsewhere, however it went unheaded in the Middle East and festered until the Arab-Israeli wars broke out.

The only really theocratic government of any size in the ME is Saudi Arabia, and they are not really a serious threat to the region beyond their control of vast oil reserves, too concerned with lining their own pockets, but no great designs on regional domination other than through the religious influence (in this case a branch of Islam called Wahhabism).

Saddam Hussein's ultra-nationalist government had bigger ideas, like complete control of the entire ME, through military force or the threat of it ("Finlandization").

Nationalism is a generally bad thing and unacceptable in today's world, Europe saw its consequences and many people died fighting against it, how we can all sit on our hands and actually defend the excesses of the same nationalism going on in the ME is beyond me. The UN was set up after WW2 precisely to recognise the threat of extreme nationalistic governments and unite against them, it has spectacularly failed in that task.

I don't support Kilroy's brand of jingoism, which attacks people rather than government doctrine, but I do think that western countries, particularly those who defeated nationalism and facism in the past and sacrified many of their citizens in doing so, should bring these nasty governments to book, and if that means using military or economic force then so be it, unfortunately it is now obvious that the UN is not going to provide support in this area.

Whenever a western country makes a stand against what is obviously an oppressive nationalistic government, they get branded an imperialist nation by the wet politicians and told to leave them alone. Apathy and appeasement are the biggest supporters of nationalism, that is as true today as it was back in 1939.

 

[Loxleyhood]

Wow. I never knew this place exsisted. I was using entirely different forums for this kind of thing.

 

[Stazbumpa]

Nationalism is a generally bad thing and unacceptable in today's world, Europe saw its consequences and many people died fighting against it, how we can all sit on our hands and actually defend the excesses of the same nationalism going on in the ME is beyond me. The UN was set up after WW2 precisely to recognise the threat of extreme nationalistic governments and unite against them, it has spectacularly failed in that task.

I don't support Kilroy's brand of jingoism, which attacks people rather than government doctrine, but I do think that western countries, particularly those who defeated nationalism and facism in the past and sacrified many of their citizens in doing so, should bring these nasty governments to book, and if that means using military or economic force then so be it, unfortunately it is now obvious that the UN is not going to provide support in this area.

Whenever a western country makes a stand against what is obviously an oppressive nationalistic government, they get branded an imperialist nation by the wet politicians and told to leave them alone. Apathy and appeasement are the biggest supporters of nationalism, that is as true today as it was back in 1939.

This bit in particular impresses me. You are correct in saying that not all theocratic organisations are bad, what I'm saying is that when the extremes of nasty government are encountered, its quite often these same organizations that are at the heart of it.

The raw stupidity of those in charge of the UN and in fact all the nations that bellyache about us or the USA getting involved in Iraq, or indeed anywhere else (Afghanistan, Bosnia etc etc) really pisses me off, they seem to have a rose tinted view of things at best or a cynical disregard for innocent life at worst, in that they seem quite happy for regimes to maim and murder at will, but are full of righteous anger against a western power(s) that wants to stop it.

The UN is dead as a force for good. It was never any good in the first place.

 

[Deadmanwalking]

The UN is dead as a force for good. It was never any good in the first place.

And it's thinking like this that is the cause of alot of the problems.

Organisations like the UN cease to work as soon as it's members start thinking it's pointless or infact if members take it apon themselves to bypass the UN and "go it alone"

 

[Stazbumpa]

And it's thinking like this that is the cause of alot of the problems.

Organisations like the UN cease to work as soon as it's members start thinking it's pointless or infact if members take it apon themselves to bypass the UN and "go it alone"

And the reason for this is that the UN has never been any good at keeping the peace. UN forces have been on such duties and totally unable to anything about the war that still rages around them. Look at Bosnia, UN does sod all and lo, the USA are the ones that bailed the UN out (again).

The reason the UN is pointless is not because people want to go it alone, lets face it the USA, Britain and one or two others with balls are the only ones that do this, its because the members sit and pontificate and argue and debate until its far too late to do anything usefull and another 100,000 innocents have died as a result.
There are too many vested interests in the UN for it to be an effective force for anything other than a waste of tax payers money. Nations such as France and Germany in particular are extremely bad at throwing spanners in the works.

Look at Iraq, the UN mandates meant nothing to Saddam, but walking tall and carrying a bigger stick did.

 

[Meatballs]

interesting reading

 

[Mazling]

I agree that the UN is useless with countries wrangling deals and playing with words, for benefits to their own nations. The point of the UN is to do things together. I suppose it is also the point of the UN to stop single nations from taking unilateral action ... the cause of taking some firepower to a nation to free it from an oppressive governement is a worthy cause, and so is to remove the country/government if it is a threat to other countries. The point is that the reasons for war were lied about - the public of many countries were deceived about "why we were going to war". MY point is that those values have to come above taking the kind of action that was Gulf War 2, purely because it makes the UN look (even more) stupid which, is a bad thing in itself. What remains to be seen is if this is going to serve as a kick up the behind for the UN and are nations going to start taking their (hopefully, and not self-serving as it appears with some,) noble intent a bit more seriously and accepting the consequences that go with it.

Good riddance to Kilroy; one down, god knows how many trash chat shows to go ...
And as for religon, individuals have always abused this to get their own way. Fine - if you want to believe the entire universe was sneezed out of a giant arkleseizure - be my guest. What people need to see is the parallel between their own lives and the current UN situation: pushing your own interests in seeing yourself and your beliefs in far away places, and giving the values for which you supposedly stand for a back seat, leads to things like Iraq. My own personal view is that all religion is inherently evil. It represents a full stop - "this is right and sod off if you think you can tell us otherwise" - and t becomes evil^n where n is the amount on people involved for their own benefit. e.g. scientology, those mormons.

Suppose I have to cry "this is not a flame" as I don't usually add anything to forums beyond my shallow (tee hee) interest regarding german lavatorial habits. So ner.

 

[Nightchill]

Stazbumpa's avatar is hypnotising.

 

[xane]

And it's thinking like this that is the cause of alot of the problems.

How can you but think like that ?

Take the case of Iraq; an ultra-nationalist government, who built an army big enough to cripple their economy despite being one of the most mineral rich in the world, with an appalling human rights record, a foreign policy of continual threat to all their neighbours, invading sovereign territory twice and then threatening the UN mandated reprisals with measures clearly in breach of international agreements.

The very minimum the UN should have _instisted_ after the first Gulf War was over, for the government of Iraq to stand down or be chucked out the UN.

The UN "action" was to submit ultimatum after ultimatum to the same people who had lied and cheated and ignored UN policy, it was getting beyond a joke.

 

[dr_jo]

What really confuses me is how the column actually got printed in the first place. I mean, people do actually read the content of a newspaper before it gets printed don't they? How could you possibly miss that, and think that there would be no huge outcry about it? I'm also worried by the Express' decision to stand behind Kilroy, and defend his actions.

Having done a bit of research, it appears that the article has actually appeared twice. Once in April last year, during the Iraq war, when it refered to "Arab Countries", rather than arabs. The original article recieved no complaints. The changes were made by the Express, who are apparently standing by those changes.

The questions is, is it acceptable to refer to Arab countries as "suicide bombers, limb amputators, women repressors". Surely those terms apply to individuals, and people rather than countries or governments?

 

[nath]

That's the bit that got me.. women repressors and limb amputators may well be an adequate description of certain arab countries but suicide bombers suggests more of a claim about individuals. All in all, I think the article was pretty retarded but I have no problem with it being printed. I believe in free speech and that means wankers get to have their say too.

 

[dr_jo]

Even if their views are racist, based on untruths, and inflamitory to racial hatred? I'm not sure I believe he has the right to say those things, just as I don't think he has the right to act on those thoughts, by going and killing the lot of them. Thinking it, fine. He is of course welcome to his opinion, but I'm not sure I can understand the defense of him acting on it.

 

[nath]

I never said I'd condone him going and killing the lot of them, I simply said I don't have a problem with him telling people that we should. Especially since this was written in his column, so those are his opinions. If it was in the front page, being depicted as fact then there'd be a problem. As I said, I believe in freedom of speech and you can't pick and choose who has the right to say what because, well, that wouldn't be free would it.

 

[00dave]

Stazbumpa's avatar is hypnotising.

Ch3tan's is better.

 

[dr_jo]

I never said I'd condone him going and killing the lot of them, I simply said I don't have a problem with him telling people that we should.

I wasn't attacking your point of view, I was just trying to explain my opinion on the matter.

 

[Wij]

To be fair I thought he was originally referring to Arab States, as in the government/dictatorship. In this context it is quite right to refer to the suicide bombers as many of the regimes actively encourage and fund suicide bombers in Israel. They keep their regime popular by fuelling racial hatred. And people thought fascist governments had died after WW2. Hitler would be proud.

 

[Tom]

Personally, I think hes a pompous git, and I'm glad his programme has been removed, for whatever reason. I remember flicking through the channels and catching a discussion where an MP was roundly insulted by Kilroy - "Oh Mr high and mighty MP, come on, whats your excuse...." or words to that effect. Obviously Kilroy conveniently forgot that he was a shite MP.

 

[Wij]

It's true he's an annoying twat. I won't miss his programme. Then again, who would watch daytime TV ? I have DVDs, consoles, a PC and a job. I try to fit those in in that order before daytime telly gets a look in.

 

[Stazbumpa]

What I find interesting is that his article was originally published way back last April, and I dont remember a huge argument about it then, so why now?
Yes he is a pompous git, but in my bleary channel hopping before I go to work I have caught the odd moment on his show where he has actually put forward a very good argument to the numpty's in his studio audience, what alchoholics would refer to as a moment of clarity. But then these were rare indeed, as were my Kilroy viewing habits.



I love my avatar too, it comforts me in these dark days.

 

[Insane]

the avatar is quite... hypnotising...

*watches*

i found watching killroy i wanted to cause him severe pain and anguish.. not for what he done but of the morons they let onto the show...

of course i only ever caught 3 shows due to being hospitalised and forced into watching it...

newspapers always seem proficient at digging up stuff to cause outrage and anger at the best time, if it wasnt for the rampant anti-war last year it would have been picked up then.. theres always bigger fish to fry in the news.

 

[SheepCow]

Out of the three things he said, every one is true - I'm not saying all arabs are like that but there are some