N. and S. Korea firing artillery at each other

[Monty]

@Commissar

Your nation is not known for its restraint.

I really have no idea if FinnAgain is an American citizen; however, according to you, you immigrated to the United States and have actually voted in a recent federal election. That means you either (a) have intentionally become a citizen of the United States of America and thus it is your country by your choice, or (b) you have committed a crime by voting in contravention of federal law.

The fact that you did not attack does not make you peaceful or non-belligerent.

Actually, it pretty much does mean that. A belligerent, as you’re obviously using it in this post is a country that is aggressively hostile. Now, of course you could read further down the list of definitions and fish up the one about a party engaged in a war but then you run the risk of “moving the goalposts” as you have been fond of accusing others of doing.

It means only that you currently lack the capacity to threaten world peace in this manner.

Well, let’s run the film here regarding North Korea, shall we?

[ul][li]25 June 1950 - North Korea invades South Korea, initiating the Korean War.[/li][li]21 June 1968 - Assassination attempt on President Park.[/li][li]15 August 1974 - Assasination attempt on President Park, failed but killed the First Lady.[/li][li]18 August 1976 - Murder of two US Army officers for trying to trim a tree blocking the view between two UNC observation posts.[/li][li]29 November 1987 - Bombing of a Korean Air civilian passenger jet.[/li][li]23 November 2010 - Bombing of Yeonpyeong Island.[/ul][/li]
So, perhaps you could enlighten us poor, benighted, democratic, capitalist partisans. Exactly how many times has South Korea or the United States:

[ul][li]invaded North Korea to start a full-blown war?[/li][li]attempted to assassinate the leader of North Korea?[/li][li]murdered any North Korean military personnel during the truce over a tree?[/li][li]killed the First Lady of North Korea?[/li][li]blown up a North Korean civilian passenger jet?[/li][li]bombed a North Korean island after the Armistice was signed?[/ul][/li]
If you answer anything other than zero, you are not telling the truth.

Don’t get hung up on terminology. In this context, “defenses” means moving troops and military hardware to the South/North border. Yes, that’s pretty aggressive.

Ah, here we have it. You are now redefining words to suit your purpose. Perhaps you could recommend a good dictionary that’s up on your definitions? Maybe one published in 1984?

I am confident that you would be none too happy if the PRC sent a fleet of warships and submarines to your maritime borders, and it’s not even an active enemy of yours.

That’s not even a nice try. The PRC does not have a shared maritime border with the United States. And you’re conveniently ignoring the simple fact that the fleet of warships from the US is in response to North Korea’s bombing. You remember that little bit of trivia, don’t you?

Western way, huh? Well, since you’ve immigrated to the west (according to you), and voted for someone other than a communist candidate (according to you), in a recent US federal election, then you’re western.

[Siam_Sam]

[quote=“Monty, post:321, topic:561645”]

Well, let’s run the film here regarding North Korea, shall we?

[ul][li]25 June 1950 - North Korea invades South Korea, initiating the Korean War.[/li][li]21 June 1968 - Assassination attempt on President Park.[/li][li]15 August 1974 - Assasination attempt on President Park, failed but killed the First Lady.[/li][li]18 August 1976 - Murder of two US Army officers for trying to trim a tree blocking the view between two UNC observation posts.[/li][li]29 November 1987 - Bombing of a Korean Air civilian passenger jet.[/li][li]23 November 2010 - Bombing of Yeonpyeong Island.[/ul][/li][/QUOTE]

Don’t forget the 1983 Rangoon bombing, a North Korean attempt to assassinate SK President Chun. He survived, but there were 21 dead, including the SK foreign minister.

[Monty]

@Commissar

You’re hedging on your stance here, friend. In your previous post, you claimed that North Korea “shelled [South Korea] in a completely unprovoked attack.” Now you’re stating that it may be possible that the South actually fired on the North’s territory first. If it did, then the response was clearly not “completely unprovoked.”

Care to point out exactly where FinnAgain said the South attacked the North? For someone who complains about people “moving goalposts,” you’re giving a mighty effort to moving them yourself!

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

Has it even been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that South Korea actually and knowingly fired artillery into disputed waters? Would that same level of proof then be satisfactory in explaining the sinking of the Cheonan?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Monty

I think it’s more than obvious that the “saber rattling” is on the part of North Korea. That’s one of the main reasons the Sunshine Policy wasn’t such a hot thing.

NOrth Korea’s stance as belligerent as it is hasn’t really cahnged that much. SK’s stance has changed significantly.

[Monty]

Yeah, governments tend to change stance when their citizens are killed. Odd, huh?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@FinnAgain

You’re reviving the Fallacy of Equivocation that Damuri unsuccessfully tried to trot out.

What is fallacy of equivocation so I’ll know the next time I trot it out?

Murdering someone because of the cigarette they’re smoking would only be considered a “provocation for the murder” by someone trying to serve as an apologist for the murderer. It’s not persuasive to anybody who hasn’t already decided to ameliorate the actions of a murderer. Or in the case of NK, a pack of murderers.

I thought I made it as crystal clear as possible that I don’t condone or excuse NK.

Even if an action can be said to be “provocative”, the absurdity of the apologia becomes clear when you claim that stinky cigarettes, or splashes in the water, render an unprovoked murder somehow “provoked”.

Sure if it was just splashes in the water. It was more than that. It was exerting sovereignty over contested waters. ONCE AGAIN, I’m not excusing or condoning NK’s actions but its silly to say that this was some sort of surprise or sneak attack.

But as the facts are (facts, not opinions), that NK engaged in murder hours after the so-called provocation ceased, and that “provocation” consisted of splashes in the water.

“We had to end the lives of several human beings, because four hours earlier there were splashes in the water.” simply doesn’t debunk the fact that the NK’s attack was unprovoked.

I think you may be confusing self defense (or clear and present danger) with provocation.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@FoieGrasIsEvil

Has it even been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that South Korea actually and knowingly fired artillery into disputed waters? Would that same level of proof then be satisfactory in explaining the sinking of the Cheonan?

I think the SKs have admitted as much.

[Dissonance]

@Siam_Sam

Don’t forget the 1983 Rangoon bombing, a North Korean attempt to assassinate SK President Chun. He survived, but there were 21 dead, including the SK foreign minister.

Or shoot outs with North Korean special forces when their mini-sub grounded in South Korea, or digging tunnels under the DMZ or abducting Japanese civilians or attacking ships in international waters or - well, it’s almost hard to find an end.

[Monty]

I’m curious now. If the water surrounding the island is claimed by North Korea, then why did the North wait until some shells were fired into the water before killing people on the island? After all, there’s a Naval base there and it’s not unknown for ROK Navy ships to actually go to the place. You’d think that actually traversing the waters in a warship would torque someone.

[Commissar]

@FinnAgain

You might, potentially, have something of a case if shells fell within NK and caused a clear a present danger, or hurt any NK citizens.

This is a very interesting and telling statement. North Korea “might, potentially” have a case of provocation if the South actively harmed its citizens? Really? You’d still be on the fence about that? “Eh, I see we killed some North Korean civilians. Yeah, I’m not sure I would call that provocative per se. Seems pretty reasonable to me, all things considered.”

Basically, you won’t admit provocation under any circumstances, it seems. You’re bending over backwards to claim that purposefully violating a nation’s sovereignty after being explicitly warned not to is somehow not provocative. We seem to be on different wavelengths here. I wonder if your tune would change were the North to start bombarding Southern territories (without causing property damage or harm to humans). I rather suspect that it would…

[Commissar]

@Monty

Well, let’s run the film here regarding North Korea, shall we?

[ul][li]25 June 1950 - North Korea invades South Korea, initiating the Korean War.[/li][li]21 June 1968 - Assassination attempt on President Park.[/li][li]15 August 1974 - Assasination attempt on President Park, failed but killed the First Lady.[/li][li]18 August 1976 - Murder of two US Army officers for trying to trim a tree blocking the view between two UNC observation posts.[/li][li]29 November 1987 - Bombing of a Korean Air civilian passenger jet.[/li][li]23 November 2010 - Bombing of Yeonpyeong Island.[/ul][/li]
So, perhaps you could enlighten us poor, benighted, democratic, capitalist partisans. Exactly how many times has South Korea or the United States:

[ul][li]invaded North Korea to start a full-blown war?[/li][li]attempted to assassinate the leader of North Korea?[/li][li]murdered any North Korean military personnel during the truce over a tree?[/li][li]killed the First Lady of North Korea?[/li][li]blown up a North Korean civilian passenger jet?[/li][li]bombed a North Korean island after the Armistice was signed?[/ul][/li]
If you answer anything other than zero, you are not telling the truth.

Yes, and those pesky North Koreans also invented AIDS and killed Jesus. :rolleyes: Because, why not.

Your “list” falls somewhat short of a solid argument, what with the misrepresentations and the unwarranted assumptions. For example:

(1) Attributing the Korean War solely to the North Koreans conveniently leaves out most of the actual history and geopolitics surrounding it.

(2) Park’s wife was killed by a Japanese person of Korean descent. Nothing ever tied him to North Korea and, in fact, Japan strenuously denied any such ties. I guess that means that Tokyo was in cahoots with Pyongyang, huh?

(3) Shootings at the DMZ happen, and they happen on both sides. Blaming one side when both have hair-triggers is unreasonable.

[Camus]

@Commissar

Your “list” falls somewhat short of a solid argument, what with the misrepresentations and the unwarranted assumptions.

The list establishes that the North has a long and well-documented history of aggression, with or without provocation, with or without some pretextual justification. Why is it that those who view the US with disdain trumpet and obsess over its misdeeds yet can easily handwave away those of other, more sinister regimes? Particularly when the US has nothing to do with the incident at Yeongpong Island.

(1) Attributing the Korean War solely to the North Koreans conveniently leaves out most of the actual history and geopolitics surrounding it.

The history is that there were frequent border skirmishes between the North and the South, but nothing like a full-blown invasion until the North’s troops decided to roll into the South. The beginnings of the Cold War caused the permanent division of the two Koreas but North Korea started the full-blown war.

(2) Park’s wife was killed by a Japanese person of Korean descent. Nothing ever tied him to North Korea and, in fact, Japan strenuously denied any such ties. I guess that means that Tokyo was in cahoots with Pyongyang, huh?

Mun Se-gwang, the assassin, was a suspected North Korean sympathizer. Koreans in Japan, particularly in the 1950s-1970s, self-divided into groups that became the pro-North Korean Chongryon and the pro-South Korean Mindan. The Chongryon, in keeping with the ideology of the North, was the more militant of the two, and was suspected of being essentially an organized crime society due to the illicit funneling of money and goods to North Korea and other financial crimes. Don’t complain about someone leaving history and geopolitics out of the equation if you do the same.

(3) Shootings at the DMZ happen, and they happen on both sides. Blaming one side when both have hair-triggers is unreasonable.

How many North Koreans have been killed at the DMZ in the past 40 years in shooting or any other incidents by South Korean or US forces?

[Monty]

@Commissar

Yes, and those pesky North Koreans also invented AIDS and killed Jesus. :rolleyes: Because, why not.

Because I didn’t say that. If you wish to engage in this kind of behavior, you will be far better served to carry it to The BBQ Pit where such commentary from you can receive the appropriate response.

By the way, last I heard, the dude who killed President Park’s wife was a South Korean citizen who was resident in Japan. Care to comment on that, or do you prefer to be kind of free with ignoring actual citizenship?

[FinnAgain]

@Commissar

North Korea “might, potentially” have a case of provocation if the South actively harmed its citizens?

It’s interesting how you’ve decided to totally abandon context in order to make your apologia work. Naturally, you are, again, ignoring the role that the vast time delay had in the situation. Waiting for hours after the alleged “provocation” makes things quite different. If SK shell(s) had fallen on the NK mainland and represented a hazard for NK citizens, then if such bombardment did not cease it would serve as a provocation for military retaliation (circumstances depending). If NK waited for hours afterward, until there were no shells falling at all and no chance of any more and then they attacked SK, then it would obviously be an unprovoked attack (exactly like the one we’re discussing).

Likewise, if an NK ship had wandered into SK waters unbeknown to the SK forces and had come under fire, then the circumstances of that event would determine whether or not it was an actual provocation for war. Had it made the SK forces aware of its position, had they attempted to render assistance or tried to sink it once they found out it had been damaged, etc, etc, etc.

Or we can just get back to:
Boooooo capitalism!
(Hoooray beer!)

@Commissar

you won’t admit provocation under any circumstances

To keep score:
“Defense” means “aggression”
“not starting any violence at all” means “belligerence”
“Potentially” means “not under any circumstances”

@Commissar

purposefully violating a nation’s sovereignty after being explicitly warned not to is somehow not provocative.

Except this has nothing to do with NK’s sovereignty as it occurred in SK waters. Shall we add that to the list above, whereby another country’s territory becomes your “sovereign” turf?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Commissar

(1) Attributing the Korean War solely to the North Koreans conveniently leaves out most of the actual history and geopolitics surrounding it.

I think its a hard task to shift much blame for the korean war away from north korea.
You can make an argument that it was logical and consistent with their ideology and mroality but NK pretty much started it by invading South korea.

[Commissar]

@Camus

Mun Se-gwang, the assassin, was a suspected North Korean sympathizer. Koreans in Japan, particularly in the 1950s-1970s, self-divided into groups that became the pro-North Korean Chongryon and the pro-South Korean Mindan. The Chongryon, in keeping with the ideology of the North, was the more militant of the two, and was suspected of being essentially an organized crime society due to the illicit funneling of money and goods to North Korea and other financial crimes. Don’t complain about someone leaving history and geopolitics out of the equation if you do the same.

Which is all well and good, but misses the point by a wide margin. Monty alleged that the shooting is attributable to North Korea. Yet there is nothing to indicate that the shooter had any connections at all to the North Korean government. Being sympathetic to country X does not make one its agent, nor does it make country X responsible for one’s actions.

How many North Koreans have been killed at the DMZ in the past 40 years in shooting or any other incidents by South Korean or US forces?

That question is unanswerable. North Korea prefers to remain secretive in its internal affairs, so we cannot know how many soldiers have been killed by Southern fire. Or whether any civilians were slaughtered by the South’s salvo during the latest incident.

[Commissar]

@FinnAgain

Except this has nothing to do with NK’s sovereignty as it occurred in SK waters. Shall we add that to the list above, whereby another country’s territory becomes your “sovereign” turf?

I must point out that you were the one that brought up North Korea’s official stance on the incident. Said official account states:

“… the revolutionary armed forces of the DPRK on Nov. 23 took a decisive self-defensive measure to cope with the enemy’s reckless military provocation of firing shells inside the territorial waters of the DPRK side around Yonphyong Islet in the West Sea of Korea.” [emphasis mine]

http://www.kcna.co.jp/index-e.htm [can’t link directly to story]

I’m sure that you will strenuously argue that this is a dirty lie, and that the angelic South would never, ever, allow such a thing to occur. You will likely argue that they are far too peaceful, careful, and technologically savvy to make such a provocative move.

Before you waste your breath, I offer the following:

Asia

Yes, indeed. Now the South is “mistakenly” shelling the DMZ. Please feel free to hand-wave this away as completely unprovocative and non-militant.

[XT]

You didn’t actually read that article, did you?

An army artillery unit in the border town of Paju, Gyeonggi Province, mistakenly fired a 155mm towed howitzer while on training, they said.

The shell landed some 14 kilometers north of the army base, on a hill on the South Korean side of the DMZ, they said.

The military authorities sent a message to North Korea explaining that the firing was unintentional. North Korea has given no response, they said.

So…a single shell was accidentally (or even on purpose if you insist) fired into the DMZ and landed 14 kilometers north of the NK army base, hitting nothing and killing no one.

And you truly see no difference between the two incidents? You feel that they are on par with each other? Truly?

-XT

[FinnAgain]

@xtisme

And you truly see no difference between the two incidents? You feel that they are on par with each other? Truly?

I was more impressed with the linguistic sleight of hand. Notice that one single round fired becomes “shelling the DMZ”. Go figure.

@Commissar

I must point out that you were the one that brought up North Korea’s official stance on the incident.

Yeah, the one where they admit that they murdered SK citizens because of splashes in the water. Glad you quoted it. As for you placing weight on official NK sources, that’s certainly your prerogative. One doesn’t have to accept any of your strawmen about SK in order to understand that the same regime which claims that their ruler is magical and can control the weather might just not be a totally objective source. You’re also, rather obviously, ignoring the fact that NK’s claims of what its maritme territory is don’t actually match up with what its maritime territory is. In point of fact, NK accepted the NLL until roughly two decades after it was established, giving it the weight of custom and precedent.

It’s also interesting though that you cite NK’s own admission that they murdered SK citizens in response to splashes in the water, you choose to focus on the fact that NK claims certain waters as its own rather than the sheer Orwellian absurdity of NK’s claim that it was acting in “self defense”. You’re actually citing a communication that refers to naked, unprovoked aggression as “self defense” while telling us that we should take another factual claim it makes at face value.

Kay.