War with Iran.

[Big Mac 19]

lol..plz you clearly know that the descendants of the talibans were the northen alliance activists..well in fact northen alliance and talibans are 2 different words.but we are talking about the same stuff .most of the northen alliance fighters came from pakistan and they had a radical vision

of the islamic religion..oh pretty much like the talibans.

As I said before do your research. The NA was made up of Uzbeks, Hazaras, Tajiks, and pretty much all the minority groups in Afghanistan. While the Taliban are almost all Pashtuns. The areas under NA control experienced social freedom (Notice I did not say religious freedom), while areas under Taliban control you would be killed for listening to music. One thing both sides had in common was each group were Afghans. As for the NA being an off shoot of the taliban that's just idiotic in the extreme. The NA were the remnants of various warlord factions that the Taliban ousted brought under one umbrella. Edited June 26, 2010 by Big Mac

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Big Mac, let the peasants run along with whatever they've been doing till the point of discovery of this thread.

They will be the ones crying bloody murder: "No one expected this, this is an outrage, an attack on a sovereign DEMOCRACY!! Boo-f-ing-hoo" when you'll see star wars at 0200 if you're lucky enough to have a reporter group there with a NV camera.

Demagoguery - a fine art, but I don't think they've learned it just yet, since repeating same bullshit over and over again is not it.

[Baff1 0]

Please don't tell me that this is an argument for cultural relativism?

I don't think it's possible to discuss morality without taking into account the peer group in which that morality is occouring.

To whit, how gays are treated in Iran is none of yours or mines business.

That is a matter for the Iranian people.

It's certainly not reason enough for me to advocate killing them by the thousand for example. I'm not intrested in going to war with another country over gay rights. The cure is worse than the disease.

And yes cultural relativism cuts to the quick of this issue in my book.

---------- Post added at 11:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:02 PM ----------

It wouldn't be a Walker thread if certain people, in this case even Europeans (!), would scare me with their ideas.

@Baff1, I'm happy you're comparing Iran with certain morally bankrupt countries in Africa. Kinda destroys the point you were trying to make no?

Those same countries consider us morally bankrupt for encouraging gays.

Perhaps you are unable to recognise that other people have chosen a different set of morals by which to live their lives and that this in no way affects your own choices and your own societies choices by which you wish to live yours.

---------- Post added at 11:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:05 PM ----------

The fact that you can use it to justify any event on the planet. Rape, murder, genocide, mutilations, oppression, etc.

You left out war.

There is no moral case for war. Sorry. War includes all those things you mentioned.

My morality is not empiric morality, it is just my morality.

The idea that we should bring Rape murder genocide mutilations and oppression to save the immoral from "Rape, murder, genocide mutilations etc" is frankly laughable.

The Afghans are not all thanking us for what we have done. I don't expect the Iranians would either.

Edited June 26, 2010 by Baff1

[*LK1* 10]

You brought Americans and their love for Fox News up, so don't change the subject now. Btw, if you wanna make such claims, at least back it up with some proof, otherwise you're kinda acting like a moron

is not a question of subject damn retard.

you don't have understand a fuck of what i have said :bounce3:

he told me since i'm not american i can't know what is going on in america and which media they are following.then i said well using your same logic we shouldn't speak about iran since we are not iranians....wrong or right doesn't care I was criticizing his logic.

so before telling moron to someone else you should at least trying to understand the sense of a post.

anyway:

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/26/news/26iht-stinger_ed3_.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/1357632/Taliban-still-have-Reagans-Stingers.html

they are not talking about NA fighters with stingers..but about talibans.

so probably the us government has sold a pack of stingers at the wrong guys.or maybe they have founded even the talibans to make them able to fight against the "red" mi-24.i'll vote for the second option sound more serious to me...

Edited June 26, 2010 by ***LeGeNDK1LLER***

[Big Mac 19]

is not a question of subject damn retard.

you don't have understand a fuck of what i have said :bounce3:

he told me since i'm not american i can't know what is going on in america and which media you are following.then i said well using your same logic we shouldn't speak about iran since we are not iranians....wrong or right doesn't care I was criticizing his logic.

so before telling moron to someone else you should at least trying to understand the sense of a post.

Mike84 is right. You brought it up and now that you've been proven wrong by two people you're throwing insults...

[Baff1 0]

As I said before do your research. The NA was made up of Uzbeks, Hazaras, Tajiks, and pretty much all the minority groups in Afghanistan. While the Taliban are almost all Pashtuns. The areas under NA control experienced social freedom (Notice I did not say religious freedom), while areas under Taliban control you would be killed for listening to music. One thing both sides had in common was each group were Afghans. As for the NA being an off shoot of the taliban that's just idiotic in the extreme. The NA were the remnants of various warlord factions that the Taliban ousted brought under one umbrella.

Those warlords change sides back and forwards between factions as best suits them. An enemy warlord on Tuesday is a friendly warlord on Friday.

That's the Afghan way.

Are the rules under an opium baron better or worse than the rules under the Taliban? Hard to say really.

[jakerod 254]

Those warlords change sides back and forwards between factions as best suits them. An enemy warlord on Tuesday is a friendly warlord on Friday.

That's the Afghan way.

Are the rules under an opium baron better or worse than the rules under the Taliban? Hard to say really.

I hate to say it but that isn't the Afghan way. That is everybody's way.

Also, I was advocating invading Iran before. I was just saying what is wrong with cultural relativism. I enjoy peaceful solutions to problems.

[*LK1* 10]

The fact that you can use it to justify any event on the planet. Rape, murder, genocide, mutilations, oppression, etc.

oh you can even justify any horrible event during a war with the contrare of the cultural relativism...when you think your culture is superior because has superior cultural and moral values or because your nation has seen the "light" you could start a war cuz you think you have the right to do that and to clean/indoctrinate the world as you want.we wouldn't have the nazism with a bit more of cultural relativism maybe.

i guess you are exaggerating a little bit with the conseguences of the cultural relativism.

---------- Post added at 12:45 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:33 AM ----------

Mike84 is right.you're throwing insults...

is right?oh is curious you are saying the guys with your exact idea is right :rolleyes:

You brought it up and now that you've been proven wrong by two people

i don't think you have proven a singol idea you have posted on this thread anyway.any evidence plz?

you're throwing insults...

you completely and intentionally forgot who started it simply because the guy that started with the insults agree with your point of view.thought you were mature enough to avoid these childish attitudes.

otherwise you're kinda acting like a moron

Edited June 26, 2010 by ***LeGeNDK1LLER***

[ari gold 10]

Those same countries consider us morally bankrupt for encouraging gays.

Perhaps you are unable to recognise that other people have chosen a different set of morals by which to live their lives and that this in no way affects your own choices and your own societies choices by which you wish to live yours.

Wow. So if you don't care about gay rights, you don't have to care about morally corrupt counties hanging gay people. Top stuff dude!

@ legendKiller

You brought up the "fact" about being fox news being the most popular network in america, mike84 posted proof your "fact" was bullshit, and now you're hating on mike84, puhhleeze!

[echo1 0]

I don't think it's possible to discuss morality without taking into account the peer group in which that morality is occouring.

To whit, how gays are treated in Iran is none of yours or mines business.

That is a matter for the Iranian people.

It's certainly not reason enough for me to advocate killing them by the thousand for example. I'm not intrested in going to war with another country over gay rights. The cure is worse than the disease.

And yes cultural relativism cuts to the quick of this issue in my book.

I don't think a society can say that something is wrong, and yet recognize another society's right to do it if they wish. Laws are based on a concept of objectivity, and that if you carry out that act, no matter who you are and where you are within the jurisdiction of that law, you are guilty and should be punished. Obviously there are exceptions, such as self-defense or whatever, but these are bound within particular circumstances based on logic. But I think that to say that it's completely wrong and abhorrent where you live but recognize other people's freedom to do that undermines the objectivity of that, because ultimately there is no reason why that should be the case.

Obviously this works both ways, and I'm sure there are plenty of people in the Muslim world who hate Western societies for allowing homosexual behavior, and from a completely objective viewpoint their opinion is no less valid than ours is. My ultimate point is if society as whole believes something to be wrong, we shouldn't be afraid to say it's wrong to whoever might be doing it no matter who they are or where they live. Sure we might be taking a piss over other people's cultures, but it's a small price to pay for not being a hypocrite.

[*LK1* 10]

@ legendKiller

You brought up the "fact" about being fox news being the most popular network in america, mike84 posted proof your "fact" was bullshit, and now you're hating on mike84, puhhleeze!

You brought Americans and their love for Fox News up, so don't change the subject now. Btw, if you wanna make such claims, at least back it up with some proof, otherwise you're kinda acting like a moron

here your proof gentleman.so according with your logic i'm not anymore a moron :)

I can finally get away from my face this shameful label :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel

http://www.tvweek.com/news/2009/03/cnn_ratings_down_fox_msnbc_gro.php

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/14/fox-news-most-watched-cha_n_134682.html

from the wiki source:"Fox News rates as the United States' most watched cable news channel, ahead of CNN and MSNBC."

pretty much most of you cowboys is falled in love with the murdoch's channel.

so..shouldn't you know these things since is something about your country?

Edited June 26, 2010 by ***LeGeNDK1LLER***

[Pathy 0]

War with Iran looks positively tame compared to the internet war going on in this thread :p

[Big Mac 19]

i don't think you have proven a singol idea you have posted on this thread anyway.any evidence plz?

Whenever you've came back with "your version" of history I've countered with actual facts. Read any book about the Afghan civil war and you find that what I'm saying is true. As for Fox News being the #1 watched channel in America Mike84 beat to that one, but his link confirmed what I had told you more than once.. One last thing, if you're going to quote me, don't chop up my quotes and when you respond, do so with proper spelling and punctuation. I get a head ache trying to translate your scribble.

from the wiki source:"Fox News rates as the United States' most watched cable news channel, ahead of CNN and MSNBC."

A person who uses Wikipedia as a source is a moron and your other two sources are over a year old and from a network rating standpoint meaningless.

pretty much most of you cowboys is falled in love with the murdoch's channel.

so..shouldn't you know these things since is something about your country?

So you think every American is a republican? You're a retard. I'm not a republican, I'm a registered democrat.. Edited June 26, 2010 by Big Mac

[ari gold 10]

not all of the americans but most of the americans.for what i know fox news is the most watched network in the states togheter with cnn.correct me if i'm wrong.

You know, it's pretty lame to change your claims now.

You stated Fox news was the most popular network in America, and you've been proven wrong. Own up to it unless you can come up with your own proof (and proof is not the the thing you claim it to be, you actually have to bring a source).

[*LK1* 10]

Whenever you've came back with "your version" of history I've countered with actual facts. Read any book about the Afghan civil war and you find that what I'm saying is true. As for Fox News being the #1 watched channel in America Mike84 beat to that one, but his link confirmed what I had told you more than once..

pfffff "my version" of history?well seems like your version of history comes out directly from the white house with the word "approved"printed on it.

you don't know that the talibans were funded by the americans and there are several reports(even pictures ecc..)concerning talibans with stingers..

you might don't know which role has the american goverment concerning

the support of several rebels(terrorist?)groups in balkans-Caucasus-south america..

"my version" of history...well let me tell you "your version" of history(AKA as the official version and we all agree with that...)sound curious to me.

One last thing, if you're going to quote me, don't chop up my quotes and when you respond, do so with proper spelling and punctuation. I get a head ache trying to translate your scribble.

mmm surely my english is not perfect but you are exagerrating.when you can't complain about something else here you have your last resource:gramm-proper spelling-punctuation...:rolleyes:

A person who uses Wikipedia as a source is moron...

mmm so be carefull after this consideration,you'll not be able to link anything from wikipedia cuz i'll watch you :p.very funny most of the people use wikipedia as the fastest way to gain info but when someone else do that it's magically turns into a no credible made for moron source.

just to clean your mind wikipedia is not a classical source,is a collector of source which become a source.so if you want to establish if the source used from wikipedia is credible or not you have just to check it.most of them they are.

A person who uses Wikipedia as a source is a moron and your other two sources are over a year old and from a network rating standpoint meaningless.

you have considerated most of the forum users moron...:bounce3:

however if you have better sources to show me which are the most watched networks in U.S.A.hope you'll share it with us.and anyway a source old over 1 year in this case should be considerated credible you know...fow news will not turn from the most watched to the most ignored in 1 year.even if is the second and not the first news network most watched would not change so much the point of the discussion.and for what i know is the first.

So you think every American is a republican? You're a retard. I'm not a republican, I'm a registered democrat..

i could pay even 100 euro(you know is money..1 euro=1,20 dollars..:p)to understand how you desume it.i never said and i don't think every american is republican.

p.s. thx for retard and moron...i've started to insult a guy which he was not able to understand my post and he started to insult me first.topic derailed and turned into a flame war...bah.

You know, it's pretty lame to change your claims now.

You stated Fox news was the most popular network in America, and you've been proven wrong. Own up to it unless you can come up with your own proof (and proof is not the the thing you claim it to be, you actually have to bring a source).

nope i don't have changed it.you can quote me if i'm wrong.

of course is not watched by all the 250 millions of americans 100% of them and i didn't said it..but most of them as i said.sound a bit ridicolous your stataments.

and if you take a look at my links above you'll see which news network is the most watched and is not CNN.

furthermore we don't know yet how those damn talibans has stingers on their hands since you have said your government hasn't funded any terrorist/rebel group.probably they have found the way to cultivate it togheter with opium.

guess i will never get an answer but only criticism about my grammar:p

edit:

what the americans(oh sorry most of them..)thinks about fow news.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/27/fox-news-most-popular

from the source:"That is a notably larger vote of confidence than the 39% who said they trusted Fox's great rival CNN, and vastly more than the credibility ratings of the traditional news networks ABC News (31%), CBS News (32%) and NBC News (35%)."

the most trusted...

ri edit: but you know what i don't care i'm not american and in my countries the news networks in some case are even worst than fow news(can you imagine...).i could link you some epical video about "rete 4" which the news network of our current president.yeah...our president has not 1 but 3 channel and the most ridicolous and facious is "rete 4".if you could understand

few words of italian you could have some funny moment.

VBIiLT-ITxc

this is the boss of this network calling the journalist.the journalist was thinking to speak with someone else(to another politician).when he realized he's the boss who is giving him something like 1 million euro every years his face completely changed.

XTT9Wf79paI

he's exulting since the prime minister has won the election and he is presenting the list of ministers which they are all their friends(of the journalist).

Dtekq5bdrdI

here he's singing the party anthem of the prime minister.

well and technically we are a free country...with a free journalism.

qOjVrGbwJDs

here this fool is talking thing like:"oh shit look at those legs..oh fuck we are in live.."

then he's saying at a journalist which is made a mistake "don't come closer or i'll go in jail!"

dear americans hope your news networks are not turning in this way,but slowly slowly i can see this mutation moving forward.after a couple of years you'll see the fox news journalists exulting

for the victory of a republican president.

Edited June 27, 2010 by ***LeGeNDK1LLER***

[Delta 51 10]

What the hell, this is why you don't let political topics loose in this forum.

[Darkhorse 1-6 16]

This thread was going good, Until Legendkiller completely derailed it Delta.

[madrussian 347]

Recent MSNBC article (June 27):

Israel setting up Saudi base for Iran raid?

[*LK1* 10]

This thread was going good, Until Legendkiller completely derailed it Delta.

wrong we are out of topic at least since page 7.but maybe you don't like my OT considerations instead of the others.and in this case is your problem not mine.the topic argument is the hypothetical war between iran and israel and the escalation conflict.not the cultural relativism,the composition of the iranian society or if fox news is shit or is good and even if we have the moral authority and the justifiable reasons to kill em all with a nuke before they does.

and all these arguments were not brought only by me.

my first post was this:

well considering how many times the US government has supported the terrorists around the world,before 11/9 and in some cases even after 11/9,this type of observation you made is a bit strange to me. you should give me your definition of the world terrorism i should give you mine...anyway your point of view is normal and acceptable.you are american and your problem is to stop the american's enemies trying to gain nukes.and the iranians has all the right to continues their program since we,as western governments,we started to piss off iran since 80 years ago.and from their point of view the only nation which has used the atomic bomb during a conflict is the same nation that now is talking to them "hey no guys...you are to much dangerous with that on your hands...".isn't fun?:bounce3:

seriusly guys, i have just question,do you gave an unconditional trust at the american/western media?i can't be so sure that the iran is pursuing a military atomic program.could be a big bullshit to justify a war at your eyes.like the weapons of mass destruction in iraq.which they never existed.if you want to meet a real weapon of mass destruction you had to follow the marines on fallujah :rolleyes: oh sorry but that's another story.

iran,as you many don't know, is a strange,authoritarian,muscular democracy.

and ahmadinejad is not saddam,this lastone was a dictator.you guys should stop your brainraping media for a second.you can simply use some source around the net to study the political insitutions of iran.you'll agree is not a regime,surely is not the most "democratic democracy" but once again our media are just demonizing a foreign country to manipulate the public opinion....:j:

if you want to know even milosevic was not a dictator since he was elected by the people...

and we are supposed to leave in countries were the media are free and pluralistic?funny..

pretty much IT at least part of the post.

but i saw a wrong statament coming from the wrong nationality;

And Hamas and Hizbullah have connections to AQ and Chechen separatists. As for the US,EU, and OSCE supporting Chechen separatists, I have no idea where you get that from, but it's untrue.I guess that's what you get when your media is so one sided and anti-american.

because i don't consider an american able to move any criticism like that concerning media since CNN or FOX news are not more credible than al jazeera.at least if he's not able to admit the gaps in the information system of his country first he shouldn't tell these things.

that why my OT started.hearing an american talking about "I guess that's what you get when your media is so one sided and anti-american" makes me laugh.CNN or FOX news even NBC were not able not 1 singol time to tell us

the truth about the american presence in iraq(oil and military strategical reasons) but i should hear that things coming out without replying?difficult.

1 last thing and now i can even be in topic.if you want to clean the world from the "bad guys"(aka the iranians) and you want to be the MP of the world you should keep away from your army the tons of rednecks committing crimes like these in such way.or you'll not be credible.

keLpSJ9Ngmg

question in topic:how many millions of civilians the western world want to kill this time if the war against iran will start?in iraq we went over 1 million.but i know we can do better.

Edited June 27, 2010 by ***LeGeNDK1LLER***

[Big Mac 19]

Well considering that we haven't seen a drop of oil and our gas prices have soared says a lot about your creditability. Almost everyone here including myself have proven you wrong in one respect or another. Go take your anti-american, all americans are rednecks, etc. rant some place else please.

[*LK1* 10]

Well considering that we haven't seen a drop of oil and our gas prices have soared says a lot about your creditability.

well if you consider that oil prices is constantly growing and also that is finishing

you have your answer.even if 80% of the iraqi oil is under the american control(american companies) it doesn't mean that the oil and gas prices will automatically drop.

Almost everyone here including myself have proven you wrong in one respect or another.

yeahhhhh sure you did it :rolleyes:

you don't have explained me how the talibans were/are armed with stingers if your government,as you claimed,didn't supported them but they only have supported the NA which is a completely different stuff.you proved that fox news is not 1 of the most watched news network but unfortunately you get 4 links which prove the contrare.i'm waiting just another proof and an explanation and i'm ok.1 million dollars question:why U.S.A. has invaded iraq?

and how you can prove they don't have invaded iraq for oil/strategical position of iraq?

Go take your anti-american, all americans are rednecks, etc. rant some place else please.

nope i'm not anti-american.you are intentionally confusing criticism with anti-americanism.not fair.

and i don't have said you are all rednecks. i said probably there are to much

rednecks in you army.and as you may should know is a different thing.

dude even in the western world is full of this ""anti-americanism""(and is not..),you should ask yourself how is that possible...probably the last current war without the ONU legitimation,the thousands and thousands of deliberate murders from your soldiers are not helping the american image :rolleyes:

i saw a lot of documentaries/reports ecc...french soldiers are in afghanistan as you guys.but they don't shooted everything they see like cowboys.

Edited June 27, 2010 by ***LeGeNDK1LLER***

[Big Mac 19]

yeahhhhh sure you did it

you don't have explained me how the talibans were/are armed with stingers if your government,as you claimed,never supported them but they have supported only the NA which is a completely different stuff.you proved that fox news is not 1 of the most watched news network but unfortunately you get 4 links which prove the contrare.i'm waiting just another proof and an explanation and i'm ok.1 million dollars question:why U.S.A. has invaded iraq?

and how you can prove they don't have invaded iraq for oil/strategical position of iraq?

You're right I did.

To your first statement that you say I never answered. I personally have never heard of the taliban having stingers, but it's possible they do or more likely did. They most likely either got them through capture or through defectors.

To your second statement, Mike84 showed an link to you of this year's ratings and Fox was at the half way mark. You were showing links from a year to two years ago which doesn't prove anything except that in 08 and 09 Fox News was popular, this is 2010..

As for why the US invaded Iraq, don't ask me. I've heard everything from oil, to WMDs, to an AQ connection. I personally think it's all bullshit and I don't think anyone remembers why we went there.

nope i'm not anti-american.you are intentionally confusing criticism with anti-americanism.not fair.

and i don't have said you are all rednecks. i said probably there are to much

rednecks in you army.

You are anti-american, you use stereotypes, and 5th hand knowledge to back up your idiotic statements and opinions and when you have been proven wrong by an american you get mad and throw insults like 2 year old.

[*LK1* 10]

You're right I did.

To your first statement that you say I never answered. I personally have never heard of the taliban having stingers, but it's possible they do or more likely did. They most likely either got them through capture or through defectors.

To your second statement, Mike84 showed an link to you of this year's ratings and Fox was at the half way mark. You were showing links from a year to two years ago which doesn't prove anything except that in 08 and 09 Fox News was popular, this is 2010..

As for why the US invaded Iraq, don't ask me. I've heard everything from oil, to WMDs, to an AQ connection. I personally think it's all bullshit and I don't think anyone remembers why we went there.

You are anti-american, you use stereotypes, and 5th hand knowledge to back up your idiotic statements and opinions and when you have been proven wrong by an american you get mad and throw insults like 2 year old.

oh yeah sure ok.you win.i'm anti-american.im quitting since is becoming to much pathetic this diatribe.

As for why the US invaded Iraq, don't ask me. I've heard everything from oil, to WMDs, to an AQ connection. I personally think it's all bullshit and I don't think anyone remembers why we went there.

pffffff you are avoiding the question 1 more time...why the invasion?

Edited June 27, 2010 by ***LeGeNDK1LLER***

[Big Mac 19]

pffffff you still avoiding the question...why the invasion?

How is that avoiding the question? I clearly answered it...

[Scrub 0]

Once again ignorance leads the way right in front of rhetoric. The Taliban have Stingers, at least to begin with, because we Americans supported the Afghans during the time they were invaded by the then Soviet Union. Proxy war, maintaining the status quo, fighting for freedom.. Many reasons that ring at least partially true. Same for Osama Bin Laden. Trained by our CIA against a greater threat than we were. Now the Soviet threat is gone, and We take our turn as Bin Ladens' #1.

Big Mac, you have less than no right to tell someone else to stand down and shut-up, and also hold no monopoly on your so called 'progressive intelligence' - You don't even know your own country's history and are calling someone else 'Anti-American'? Clueless hypocrite much?