• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 12:11
CEST 18:11
KST 01:11
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
RSL Season 1 - Final Week6[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall15HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18Classic wins Code S Season 2 (2025)16Code S RO4 & Finals Preview: herO, Rogue, Classic, GuMiho0
Community News
Esports World Cup 2025 - Brackets Revealed17Weekly Cups (July 7-13): Classic continues to roll8Team TLMC #5 - Submission extension3Firefly given lifetime ban by ESIC following match-fixing investigation17$25,000 Streamerzone StarCraft Pro Series announced7
StarCraft 2
General
Heaven's Balance Suggestions (roast me) The Memories We Share - Facing the Final(?) GSL Who will win EWC 2025? Esports World Cup 2025 - Brackets Revealed RSL Revival patreon money discussion thread
Tourneys
Sea Duckling Open (Global, Bronze-Diamond) FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament RSL: Revival, a new crowdfunded tournament series $5,100+ SEL Season 2 Championship (SC: Evo)
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation # 482 Wheel of Misfortune Mutation # 481 Fear and Lava Mutation # 480 Moths to the Flame Mutation # 479 Worn Out Welcome
Brood War
General
BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ Flash Announces (and Retracts) Hiatus From ASL Soulkey Muta Micro Map? BW General Discussion [ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall
Tourneys
CSL Xiamen International Invitational [Megathread] Daily Proleagues 2025 ACS Season 2 Qualifier Cosmonarchy Pro Showmatches
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers I am doing this better than progamers do.
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Path of Exile Nintendo Switch Thread CCLP - Command & Conquer League Project The PlayStation 5
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread The Games Industry And ATVI Russo-Ukrainian War Thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Stop Killing Games - European Citizens Initiative
Fan Clubs
SKT1 Classic Fan Club! Maru Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
Korean Music Discussion Movie Discussion! [Manga] One Piece Anime Discussion Thread [\m/] Heavy Metal Thread
Sports
2024 - 2025 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 NBA General Discussion
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Ping To Win? Pings And Their…
TrAiDoS
momentary artworks from des…
tankgirl
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 737 users

North Korea says/does surprising and alarming thing - Page…

Forum Index > General Forum
Post a Reply
Prev 1 41 42 43 44 45 190 Next
Schlootle
Profile Joined January 2012
United States54 Posts
March 25 2013 18:57 GMT
#841
On March 26 2013 03:50 Assault_1 wrote:
Show nested quote +
As of October 2008, China,[1] India[2] and North Korea[3] have publicly declared their commitment to no first use of nuclear weapons.


I'm sure North Korea is a country we should hold the utmost trust in what they say.
Hemling
Profile Joined March 2010
Sweden93 Posts
March 25 2013 19:06 GMT
#842
On March 26 2013 03:57 Schlootle wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 26 2013 03:50 Assault_1 wrote:
As of October 2008, China,[1] India[2] and North Korea[3] have publicly declared their commitment to no first use of nuclear weapons.


I'm sure North Korea is a country we should hold the utmost trust in what they say.


confusing, do you mean their "threats to use nuclear weapons" or their declaration to not use them first?
http://eu.battle.net/sc2/en/profile/246845/1/Hemligt/
Schlootle
Profile Joined January 2012
United States54 Posts
March 25 2013 19:17 GMT
#843
On March 26 2013 04:06 Hemling wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 26 2013 03:57 Schlootle wrote:
On March 26 2013 03:50 Assault_1 wrote:
As of October 2008, China,[1] India[2] and North Korea[3] have publicly declared their commitment to no first use of nuclear weapons.


I'm sure North Korea is a country we should hold the utmost trust in what they say.


confusing, do you mean their "threats to use nuclear weapons" or their declaration to not use them first?


I was being sarcastic, I mean to say its hard to trust anything North Korea says.
Hemling
Profile Joined March 2010
Sweden93 Posts
March 25 2013 19:28 GMT
#844
On March 26 2013 04:17 Schlootle wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 26 2013 04:06 Hemling wrote:
On March 26 2013 03:57 Schlootle wrote:
On March 26 2013 03:50 Assault_1 wrote:
As of October 2008, China,[1] India[2] and North Korea[3] have publicly declared their commitment to no first use of nuclear weapons.


I'm sure North Korea is a country we should hold the utmost trust in what they say.


confusing, do you mean their "threats to use nuclear weapons" or their declaration to not use them first?


I was being sarcastic, I mean to say its hard to trust anything North Korea says.


Ok mate, Im fine with a little propaganda pumping from both sides, who strike first wont really matter because, when you play the wargame of thrones, you lose or you die anyway.

nuclear winter is coming...
http://eu.battle.net/sc2/en/profile/246845/1/Hemligt/
Salazarz
Profile Blog Joined April 2012
Korea (South)2591 Posts
March 25 2013 19:34 GMT
#845
There is no such thing as a "justified pre-emptive nuclear strike", lol. Nuclear weapons in general are retarded, saying it's okay to use them because oh my god, these guys said they'll bomb us soon is just... I don't even know.
micronesia
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States24673 Posts
March 25 2013 19:43 GMT
#846
On March 26 2013 04:34 Salazarz wrote:
There is no such thing as a "justified pre-emptive nuclear strike", lol. Nuclear weapons in general are retarded, saying it's okay to use them because oh my god, these guys said they'll bomb us soon is just... I don't even know.

If country x says to country y "we are going to nuke you" and then the next day country x nukes country y, will you still tell country y it would have been 'retarded' to protect themselves?

I feel nukes should never be used in war. However, I feel even stronger that pre-emptive nuclear attacks should never be threatened, and I think a lot of people feel this way.
ModeratorThere are animal crackers for people and there are people crackers for animals.
Grettin
Profile Joined April 2010
42381 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-03-25 19:46:06
March 25 2013 19:45 GMT
#847
On March 26 2013 03:55 SheepleArePeopleToo wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 26 2013 03:33 Assault_1 wrote:
North Korea has submitted yet another entry to its ongoing propaganda film festival. This time, it has released a video that threatens an attack on U.S. forces using "powerful weapons of mass destruction" and depicts an invasion of Seoul in which 150,000 American citizens are taken hostage.




Link here:
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/north-korea-video-propaganda-us-troops-rockets-125355219.html



Holy shit are those flamethrowers in their tanks, are those even legal


There has been "flame tanks" for years. Why would they be legal? Do you think North Korea cares if they would be? :p

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M67_Flame_Thrower_Tank
"If I had force-fields in Brood War, I'd never lose." -Bisu
Reaper9
Profile Joined January 2010
United States1724 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-03-25 19:48:17
March 25 2013 19:47 GMT
#848
...What game did they steal the music from, I'm getting a 80s-90s video game vibe... Oh wait its ... classic or something nvm.
I post only when my brain works.
Marti
Profile Joined August 2011
552 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-03-25 19:57:36
March 25 2013 19:56 GMT
#849

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VQ7NjGeIRw

I'm sorry but i just ROFL'd at 1:17 when they leapfrogged above a guy with a mortar. Also, flag carriers <3 !
#adun giveafuck - - - "Did this guy just randomly finger me?" - Sayle
rd
Profile Blog Joined July 2010
United States2586 Posts
March 25 2013 20:01 GMT
#850
On March 26 2013 03:33 Assault_1 wrote:
North Korea has submitted yet another entry to its ongoing propaganda film festival. This time, it has released a video that threatens an attack on U.S. forces using "powerful weapons of mass destruction" and depicts an invasion of Seoul in which 150,000 American citizens are taken hostage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VQ7NjGeIRw


Link here:
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/north-korea-video-propaganda-us-troops-rockets-125355219.html


Lol, NK still uses t-55's/t59's. They should ask the Iraqi's how well that worked out for them in 2003 against the American Abrams or the British Challengers.
xM(Z
Profile Joined November 2006
Romania5281 Posts
March 25 2013 20:04 GMT
#851
On March 26 2013 04:43 micronesia wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 26 2013 04:34 Salazarz wrote:
There is no such thing as a "justified pre-emptive nuclear strike", lol. Nuclear weapons in general are retarded, saying it's okay to use them because oh my god, these guys said they'll bomb us soon is just... I don't even know.

If country x says to country y "we are going to nuke you" and then the next day country x nukes country y, will you still tell country y it would have been 'retarded' to protect themselves?

I feel nukes should never be used in war. However, I feel even stronger that pre-emptive nuclear attacks should never be threatened, and I think a lot of people feel this way.

getting hit with a nuke would not prevent you from launching one so no, the concept of pre-emptive nuclear strike should not exist.
also, when a nuke is launched, you can 'see it' with your satelites even before it gets up into the atmosphere so again, there is plenty of time to retaliate with one of your own.
"Launch on warning (LOW) is a strategy of nuclear weapon retaliation that gained recognition during the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union. With the invention of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), launch on warning became an integral part of mutually assured destruction (MAD) theory. Under this strategy, a retaliatory strike is launched upon warning of enemy nuclear attack, while its missiles are still in the air, and before detonation occurs."
And my fury stands ready. I bring all your plans to nought. My bleak heart beats steady. 'Tis you whom I have sought.
revel8
Profile Joined January 2012
United Kingdom3022 Posts
March 25 2013 20:05 GMT
#852
On March 26 2013 04:43 micronesia wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 26 2013 04:34 Salazarz wrote:
There is no such thing as a "justified pre-emptive nuclear strike", lol. Nuclear weapons in general are retarded, saying it's okay to use them because oh my god, these guys said they'll bomb us soon is just... I don't even know.

If country x says to country y "we are going to nuke you" and then the next day country x nukes country y, will you still tell country y it would have been 'retarded' to protect themselves?

I feel nukes should never be used in war. However, I feel even stronger that pre-emptive nuclear attacks should never be threatened, and I think a lot of people feel this way.


I think there is a difference between public rhetoric and what is said using the diplomatic channels. Yes, threatening a nuclear strike is a VERY serious diplomatic move, but I don't think that this is being said via the diplomats. All Governments know the difference between propoganda and a declaration of intentions.
micronesia
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States24673 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-03-25 20:10:04
March 25 2013 20:09 GMT
#853
On March 26 2013 05:04 xM(Z wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 26 2013 04:43 micronesia wrote:
On March 26 2013 04:34 Salazarz wrote:
There is no such thing as a "justified pre-emptive nuclear strike", lol. Nuclear weapons in general are retarded, saying it's okay to use them because oh my god, these guys said they'll bomb us soon is just... I don't even know.

If country x says to country y "we are going to nuke you" and then the next day country x nukes country y, will you still tell country y it would have been 'retarded' to protect themselves?

I feel nukes should never be used in war. However, I feel even stronger that pre-emptive nuclear attacks should never be threatened, and I think a lot of people feel this way.

getting hit with a nuke would not prevent you from launching one so no, the concept of pre-emptive nuclear strike should not exist.
also, when a nuke is launched, you can 'see it' with your satelites even before it gets up into the atmosphere so again, there is plenty of time to retaliate with one of your own.
"Launch on warning (LOW) is a strategy of nuclear weapon retaliation that gained recognition during the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union. With the invention of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), launch on warning became an integral part of mutually assured destruction (MAD) theory. Under this strategy, a retaliatory strike is launched upon warning of enemy nuclear attack, while its missiles are still in the air, and before detonation occurs."

This makes several assumptions, such as that a nuke would be launched from within the home country, and that nuke launching capabilities necessarily could not be destroyed. In the case of a conflict between the USA and Russia, the latter is definitely true. In NK's case I'm not so sure.

As for the former, the assumption is most definitely wrong in the case of NK. Also I should note that I'm not saying the correct response to a threat of a nuclear attack is automatically a pre-emptive nuclear strike.

On March 26 2013 05:05 revel8 wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 26 2013 04:43 micronesia wrote:
On March 26 2013 04:34 Salazarz wrote:
There is no such thing as a "justified pre-emptive nuclear strike", lol. Nuclear weapons in general are retarded, saying it's okay to use them because oh my god, these guys said they'll bomb us soon is just... I don't even know.

If country x says to country y "we are going to nuke you" and then the next day country x nukes country y, will you still tell country y it would have been 'retarded' to protect themselves?

I feel nukes should never be used in war. However, I feel even stronger that pre-emptive nuclear attacks should never be threatened, and I think a lot of people feel this way.


I think there is a difference between public rhetoric and what is said using the diplomatic channels. Yes, threatening a nuclear strike is a VERY serious diplomatic move, but I don't think that this is being said via the diplomats. All Governments know the difference between propoganda and a declaration of intentions.

Yes the exact manner of the 'threat' being issued is quite important. However, if a country officially tells its people "we are going to nuke country x" then that is pretty serious even if diplomats say it isn't true.
ModeratorThere are animal crackers for people and there are people crackers for animals.
Salazarz
Profile Blog Joined April 2012
Korea (South)2591 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-03-25 21:06:19
March 25 2013 21:05 GMT
#854
You realize that an all-out nuclear attack on a country isn't a military action, right? It's called 'genocide', and it's not cool. Like, even if you completely disregard the after-effects of nuclear strikes such as radioactive fallout in neighbouring areas and what-not, you're basically saying it's okay to kill 20-odd million civilians because their country is ruled by an universally hated dictatorship. It's not like everyone in Korea actually supports the regime and dreams of watching America die in a fire - they're people, just like you and me, who simply want to go on with their lives. IF North Korean regime was actually seen as a threat to USA (or anyone else, for the matter), military intervention could become a reality - but a nuclear strike (preventive? lol) is honestly unthinkable. The loss of life and the issues that would arise out of it are simply beyond imagining.
micronesia
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States24673 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-03-25 21:14:59
March 25 2013 21:13 GMT
#855
On March 26 2013 06:05 Salazarz wrote:
You realize that an all-out nuclear attack on a country isn't a military action, right? It's called 'genocide', and it's not cool. Like, even if you completely disregard the after-effects of nuclear strikes such as radioactive fallout in neighbouring areas and what-not, you're basically saying it's okay to kill 20-odd million civilians because their country is ruled by an universally hated dictatorship. It's not like everyone in Korea actually supports the regime and dreams of watching America die in a fire - they're people, just like you and me, who simply want to go on with their lives. IF North Korean regime was actually seen as a threat to USA (or anyone else, for the matter), military intervention could become a reality - but a nuclear strike (preventive? lol) is honestly unthinkable. The loss of life and the issues that would arise out of it are simply beyond imagining.

Yes, there would certainly be no justification to do this with the possible exception of preventing the same exact thing from happening to you. If, for example, NK really did make good on some promise to nuke the USA, would any of those things you just described not happen to the USA instead? Of course, this probably inflates NK's actual military capabilities. Once again I want to emphasize that such a decision should and would never be taken lightly (I would hope). You don't nuke a country because they piss you off. In fact, hopefully no country ever gets nuked. NK isn't doing a very good job of preventing this though.

It would also be nice to get some perspectives from people who actually live in a country that NK has made clear they would like to nuke. It's very easy to take the moral superiority viewpoint from the UK, Germany, or Romania...
ModeratorThere are animal crackers for people and there are people crackers for animals.
Shield
Profile Blog Joined August 2009
Bulgaria4824 Posts
March 26 2013 08:52 GMT
#856
North Korea says it has ordered artillery and rocket units into "combat posture" to prepare to target US bases in Hawaii, Guam and the US mainland.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-21935342

---

Personally, I doubt they can hit the mainland, but I'm curious to see if they're that stupid to attack those bases.
Zaros
Profile Blog Joined September 2010
United Kingdom3692 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-03-26 09:05:30
March 26 2013 09:05 GMT
#857
On March 26 2013 17:52 darkness wrote:
North Korea says it has ordered artillery and rocket units into "combat posture" to prepare to target US bases in Hawaii, Guam and the US mainland.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-21935342

---

Personally, I doubt they can hit the mainland, but I'm curious to see if they're that stupid to attack those bases.


They can reportedly hit Alaska, although I dont know if that counts as the mainland.
TOCHMY
Profile Blog Joined June 2010
Sweden1692 Posts
March 26 2013 09:17 GMT
#858
On March 26 2013 06:13 micronesia wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 26 2013 06:05 Salazarz wrote:
You realize that an all-out nuclear attack on a country isn't a military action, right? It's called 'genocide', and it's not cool. Like, even if you completely disregard the after-effects of nuclear strikes such as radioactive fallout in neighbouring areas and what-not, you're basically saying it's okay to kill 20-odd million civilians because their country is ruled by an universally hated dictatorship. It's not like everyone in Korea actually supports the regime and dreams of watching America die in a fire - they're people, just like you and me, who simply want to go on with their lives. IF North Korean regime was actually seen as a threat to USA (or anyone else, for the matter), military intervention could become a reality - but a nuclear strike (preventive? lol) is honestly unthinkable. The loss of life and the issues that would arise out of it are simply beyond imagining.

Yes, there would certainly be no justification to do this with the possible exception of preventing the same exact thing from happening to you. If, for example, NK really did make good on some promise to nuke the USA, would any of those things you just described not happen to the USA instead? Of course, this probably inflates NK's actual military capabilities. Once again I want to emphasize that such a decision should and would never be taken lightly (I would hope). You don't nuke a country because they piss you off. In fact, hopefully no country ever gets nuked. NK isn't doing a very good job of preventing this though.

It would also be nice to get some perspectives from people who actually live in a country that NK has made clear they would like to nuke. It's very easy to take the moral superiority viewpoint from the UK, Germany, or Romania...


What you say about living in the country getting threats is fair enough. However, there's got to be better ways to deal with NK than fucking nuking them. Do you even realise the devestation a nuke will have? You don't send a nuke on a country just because "they threatened us to send it" or "they sent it first".

I hope USA is smart enough to realise that.
Yoona <3 ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Look! It's Totoro! ☉.☉☂
Martijn
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
Netherlands1219 Posts
March 26 2013 09:47 GMT
#859
I'd argue it's more a discussion about need. The US doesn't need to use a nuke to take out North Korea, they have more than enough military options. It might be the most cost-efficient and quickest option, but the gigantic loss of life more than outweighs that. People suggesting that nuking North Korea is an option either aren't thinking it through or they need to seriously reevaluate their morality.

Even in retaliation. The people of North Korea don't get a say in any of this, hell, they can't even elect their own leaders. Justifying murdering them because their regime took unjustifiable actions still doesn't work. Civilian casualties should be limited at all cost.
http://www.glhf.tv fighting! Former WesternWolves & LowLandLions operations manager.
EpiK
Profile Blog Joined January 2007
Korea (South)5757 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-03-26 09:52:04
March 26 2013 09:51 GMT
#860
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/northkorea/9947489/North-Korea-defeats-US-troops-in-new-video.html

North Korea 'defeats' US troops in new video
The latest propaganda video to emerge from North Korea depicts paratroopers descending on Seoul in an invasion scenario that it said would see thousands of US citizens living in South Korea taken hostage.


The four-minute video, titled "A Short, Three-Day War," begins with images of a massive artillery and rocket barrage, followed by a large-scale land and air assault with North Korean troops streaming over the border.

The video was posted on the North's official website, Uriminzokkiri, which distributes news and propaganda from the state media.

The video's male narrator describes different stages of the invasion, including the destruction of forces under the US Pacific Command with "powerful weapons of mass destruction."

"The crack stormtroops will occupy Seoul and other cities and take 150,000 US citizens as hostages," he says.

The video shows footage of paratroopers jumping from the sky superimposed over an aerial shot of the South Korean capital, with North Korean military helicopters hovering overhead.

Prev 1 41 42 43 44 45 190 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
PSISTORM Gaming Misc
15:55
FSL Team League: PTB vs RR
Freeedom8
Liquipedia
Epic.LAN
12:00
Epic.LAN 45 Playoffs Stage
Liquipedia
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
Hui .337
RotterdaM 320
Vindicta 46
StarCraft: Brood War
Barracks 1478
Larva 1001
Mini 705
Soma 543
Hyuk 418
actioN 362
firebathero 360
TY 315
Hyun 93
Aegong 44
[ Show more ]
Terrorterran 17
GoRush 13
SilentControl 9
Dota 2
Gorgc11552
singsing3190
qojqva1579
LuMiX1
Counter-Strike
sgares1172
Stewie2K809
fl0m614
Heroes of the Storm
Khaldor496
Other Games
Beastyqt312
Lowko210
KnowMe108
ArmadaUGS77
Trikslyr64
Rex15
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick2601
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 16 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• poizon28 58
• Adnapsc2 21
• LUISG 15
• Legendk 12
• IndyKCrew
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• sooper7s
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
StarCraft: Brood War
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
• BSLYoutube
League of Legends
• Nemesis3667
• Jankos1570
Upcoming Events
CSO Contender
49m
Sparkling Tuna Cup
17h 49m
Online Event
23h 49m
Esports World Cup
2 days
ByuN vs Astrea
Lambo vs HeRoMaRinE
Clem vs TBD
Solar vs Zoun
SHIN vs Reynor
Maru vs TriGGeR
herO vs Lancer
Cure vs ShoWTimE
Esports World Cup
3 days
Esports World Cup
4 days
Esports World Cup
5 days
CranKy Ducklings
6 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

CSL Xiamen Invitational: ShowMatche
RSL Revival: Season 1
Murky Cup #2

Ongoing

BSL 2v2 Season 3
Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
BSL20 Non-Korean Championship
CSL Xiamen Invitational
2025 ACS Season 2
Championship of Russia 2025
Underdog Cup #2
FISSURE Playground #1
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25

Upcoming

CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
BSL Season 21
RSL Revival: Season 2
SEL Season 2 Championship
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
FEL Cracov 2025
Esports World Cup 2025
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
IEM Cologne 2025
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.