Talk:Afghanistan

Hehe! Nice work, Rangely. I'll follow your lead on this and modify my material to fit yours, OK? OEJ Aggre. The history section is excellent. Wipe out som marginal sillyness and the article is perfect. --Suresh 12:57, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, this article seems to be coming together nicely. Rangeley 18:56, 30 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Judgement Day - Am I Missing Something?

That part of this article seems to lean heavily to the right. Don't know about the rest of it. Probably the same. Whatever. Barcode711 01:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Osama bin Laden is a Saudi!

not an Afghanistani!--Mrasdfghjkl 12:22, 2 Nov 2005 (UTC)

If we want to be technical he was born in Yemen. But at the time, he lived in Afghanistan, thus making him an 'Afghani Terrorist.' ~Sir Rangeley GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 12:28, 2 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Osama was not a Saudi and it tweaks him so. His family owns the largest (I think) construction company in Saudi Arabia. Since he isn't a Saudi, he doesn't get the family/native dividend, which is probably what pissed him off and caused him to go hang out in Afghanistan fighting in a war against the Soviets. His fortune came from the family business in Saudi Arabia.

Interestingly, he was trained by the US government in guerrila warfare tactics through our interest in fighting the soviets indirectly. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 19:07, 2 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Osama bin Laden = Anakin Skywalker.--Mrasdfghjkl 01:03, 6 Nov 2005 (UTC)

He wasn't actually born in Yemen [1]--Mrasdfghjkl 06:36, 10 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Osama bin Laden is an Arab born in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. He is an Arab and has a Saudi citizenship He is simply not Afghani. That part should either be fixed or removed. Stevenbass 03:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Years

I think we should stick to BCE (before common era) instead of BC (before Christ). --KP CUN 00:00, 4 Nov 2005 (UTC)

"Before Christian Era"? Granted goofy ivory tower types dig it because they hate religion or anything with any connection whatsoever, and we do want to look academic in our parody, but it's obvious newspeak that really doesn't help any agenda. Changing BC->BCE and AD->CE to refer to before/after a religiously-significant year seems really childish. What's next? We move to a calendar based on some theoretical epoch because our calendar is religiously-adjusted? We must be different and strike it all out.

</rant off>

» Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 04:46, 4 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Since Dawg believes we should not be anti-religious, I am going to convert all of the year pages to the proper AH (anno Hijrae). Since the AD and BC systems don't actually correspond to any real event of religious significance, we should use an actual religious calendar as designated literally from a religious text (the Qu'ran). Any other system would be anti-religious. I am going to convert all of the dates on the front page from 2005 AD to 1425 AH this evening. --KP CUN 15:20, 4 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Why not use the Jewish Calendar?

What I'm saying is that it's really childish to change the initials used without changing the meaning of the initials just because it was originally defined by a religious organization. If we're going to play with the system, let's do something meaningful. A far less childish system would involve just using +/-, and although it still follows the year count as designated by a religious group, it doesn't have any meaning beyond aligning it with a commonly-used calendar. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 21:37, 4 Nov 2005 (UTC)

I strongly support the use of AD and BC as this is the system that is most commonly used by the readers at uncyclopedia. Using a more 'scholarly' system doesnt make sense, we are not targetting scholars. We are targetting your average person, who uses AD and BC. ~Sir Rangeley GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 19:47, 4 Nov 2005 (UTC)

This is a theological versus atheist argument. If you cannot come to an agreement, uncyc certainly does not need to be uniform. My suggestion is that you ask me to flip a coin and pick a naming convention per article. There is really no need to stick to just one. --Sophia 18:57, 5 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Animal copulation?

I’m not sure I get these animal copulation references. Is this a reference to animal husbandry or bestiality? And how is this funny? Animal husbandry has been around for a lot longer than Afghanistan. So has bestiality. If you are looking for bestiality, maybe you should go the the Great Chicago Fire article. --KP CUN 19:52, 5 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Archetype

It is my humble opinion that this is the archetypical uncyclopedia article. It is not stupid, rather it uses actual history and makes fun of it. The humor is thus "smart" humor as opposed to something worthless and stupid. This is something some of the other articles could use. Someone please respond and inform me that I am but a fool with no sense of humor. I am not saying that this should be "serious" by any means, it does not need to be continuous or smooth, but it makes reference to actual historical events (and even mentions the Acaemenids)thus it is even a minute bit informitive.

Id tend to agree with you on that. I enjoy articles that either teach you something, or remind you of things you might have forgotten, in a humorous way. And this one certainly pulls that off. ~Sir Rangeley GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 20:14, 29 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Capital

I have always thought that the new capital is Kaboom... Frederik 15:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Possible image ?

Could someone add this image to the page ? 71.184.57.61 02:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

That camel picture

Admittedly I wasn't wearing my glasses, but the first time I looked at that it looked like a really fat hairy dude blowing up a camel-head balloon with his arse. Myocardialinfarction 21:18, December 13, 2009 (UTC)