BF2S Forums 5 Minutes of Fame

Damn...i hope your parents recorded it....

So you got to have a debate on TV with an ambassador? Or you just got to say hi? Did you tear him into small pieces?

CameronPoe wrote:

I made it onto the Riz Khan show on the english version of Al Jazeera on Wednesday. A comment I submitted to them was put to the Syrian ambassador to the UN. Unfortunately I didn't get to see it myself cos I was in the pub: my parents saw it though!

The ambassador disagreed with my assertion that the best thing for Iraq right now would be civil war. Oh well! A UN ambassador is hardly likely to advocate bloodshed.

Quick question..........You endorse a civil war in Iraq, to what end?

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

I made it onto the Riz Khan show on the english version of Al Jazeera on Wednesday. A comment I submitted to them was put to the Syrian ambassador to the UN. Unfortunately I didn't get to see it myself cos I was in the pub: my parents saw it though!

The ambassador disagreed with my assertion that the best thing for Iraq right now would be civil war. Oh well! A UN ambassador is hardly likely to advocate bloodshed.

Quick question..........You endorse a civil war in Iraq, to what end?

The determination of their own destiny given that the various disparate peoples in that country were forced together behind borders drawn arbitrarily by the Brits. Iraq was an artificial country and always doomed to fail or explode in ethnic violence.

Ok, and the 5000 years before, what excuse do you offer?

Perhaps bloodshed is their destiny. It appears you advocate the bloodshed as a means to an end. Some believe that an "end" will never truly be. I think lowing was referring to 5000 years of bloodshed. (I think)

Kmarion wrote:

Perhaps bloodshed is their destiny. It appears you advocate the bloodshed as a means to an end. Some believe that an "end" will never truly be. I think lowing was referring to 5000 years of bloodshed. (I think)

a) Western civilisation similarly had thousands of years of bloodshed and infighting, effectively/hopefully ending in 1945, which led to the present day borders of many countries.

b) A lot of muslims do/did not think along nationalistic lines as Islam is meant to entail 'total submission to Allah', not to any nation. This could be the reason that they never organised themselves into nations and continued to engage in tribal/sect-based warfare until the west came along and imposed arbitrary borders.

c) If all the various sects can get separated out into their own contiguous states, the borders being defined by civil war, then perhaps peace might ensue. The borders of a LOT of countries are defined through warfare, quite often civil warfare.

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

The determination of their own destiny given that the various disparate peoples in that country were forced together behind borders drawn arbitrarily by the Brits. Iraq was an artificial country and always doomed to fail or explode in ethnic violence.

Ok, and the 5000 years before, what excuse do you offer?

Excuse for what?

I am understanding you, that civil war is going to resolve whatever issues Iraq has right now. So my question is, these people have been killing each other since the beginning of time, what makes you think this civil war you endorse is the final answer?

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Excuse for what?

I am understanding you, that civil war is going to resolve whatever issues Iraq has right now. So my question is, these people have been killing each other since the beginning of time, what makes you think this civil war you endorse is the final answer?

There is no 'final' answer to anything in this life lowing but separate the factions and there is bound to be a period of peace or at least just cold restrained hostility.

Congratulations on your brief moment of fame. 

I actually agree that civil war would be best for Iraq, but I cite it as best because it would implement some much needed population control.  Their birth rates are way too high at the moment, and if they kill each other more, then that will keep them from getting too crowded.  In addition to this, if they spend most of their efforts killing each other, they won't be able to attack the West much.

usmarine2007 wrote:

One question, why were you parents watching the English version of Al Jazeera?

Because I warned them that there would be a possibility that I would make it onto the show that night. They have it on their cable package. I don't actually have it on my cable package at all.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-12-09 10:35:00)

lowing wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

Quick question..........You endorse a civil war in Iraq, to what end?

The determination of their own destiny given that the various disparate peoples in that country were forced together behind borders drawn arbitrarily by the Brits. Iraq was an artificial country and always doomed to fail or explode in ethnic violence.

Ok, and the 5000 years before, what excuse do you offer?

Prity much the whole of Europe and Asia spent 5000 years before killing each other too.  What excuse do you offer?

JahManRed wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:

One question, why were you parents watching the English version of Al Jazeera?

Because they are terrorist................obviously.......Irish, Poe's parents,Al Jazeera...do the math.

Because they're terrorist loving liberals, who fully believe that 9/11 was justified and enjoy regularly seeing US troops killed in Iraq, of course.

Don't forget the America hating.

lowing wrote:

Don't offer an excuses, but they grew the fuck up eventually didn't they?

how long ago was the war in Bosnia?  and discounting that, the west and Asia have  been at relative peace for a whole 60  years.  Not counting the current tension between the Koreas.  ooh, and don't forget Chechnya.  and Great Britian and Ireland have been at peace for so long.  good thing they all 'grew the fuck up'