While this is not the thread for this particular debate, I would like to note that I reject the primitive Judeo-Christian concepts of “good” and “evil.” There is simply no way to adequately define them without appeals to either subjectivity (“It’s good if me likey, evil if me no likey”) or theism (“You’re evil 'cause Jesus said so”).
Even if this were true, it would still be irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Your disapproval of North Korea notwithstanding, we still don’t know what actually happened. Assigning blame based on your feelings about a given country is illogical. There is nothing in this world that magically prevents even a deeply flawed nation from being the victim of an unprovoked intrusion on its sovereignty.
Actually, we do know what happened as both sides have essentially described the actions in the same manner. South Korea engaged in military practice, something not unheard of in various militaries around the world including North Korea, and then North Korea fired shells into a populated center killing people. And there was no intrusion on North Korea’s sovereignty, your repeated assertions to the contrary notwithstanding.
I am not asserting it; the North Korean media is. This does not make it true by default. It does, however, mean that intelligent people ought to hold off on reaching conclusions until further proof one way or another becomes available. As things stand now, we have the two Koreas saying contradictory things. You may feel compelled to side with South Korea because you like it more. I, meanwhile, find such stances to be inherently illogical, so I will withhold judgment for now.
Intelligent people are able to read maps. Intelligent people are able to recognize the difference between propaganda and factual reporting. Intelligent people are able to recognize the difference between one country firing shells into its own waters and another country firing shells into a different country’s populated center actually killing people. Intelligent people are also able to recognize that I “side with South Korea” not because I like it more than that terrible blight on this planet, North Korea, but because South Korea is not constantly engaged in attacks against the North.
And I’m also not impressed at all with what you call logic.
Friend, I’m not going to waste any more of our time going over and over the same exact point. I will state one last time that your opinion is less objective than you seem to believe. No matter how many times you extol the virtues of South Korea and its media, you can never know what really happened. You can choose to swallow the South’s version hook, line, and sinker, and that’s alright. The only thing that saddens me is that you’re deluding yourself into believing that South Korean media holds a monopoly on truth. But hey, whatever floats your boat.
Wow. You really do live in a fantasy world, don’t you? Nowhere did I say that South Korea holds a monopoly on truth. But there is a simple fact here that you are quite fond of ignoring: that North Korea is no stranger to falsehood and that is what their modus operandi has been for over half a century.
And there is no way you can handwave away the shells landing in the populated area, said landing caught on video.
Speaking of boats floating, no doubt you’re going to side with North Korea and say that they had nothing to do with the ROKS Cheonan sinking.
This is going around in circles. From North Korea’s perspective, the mere presence of any South Korean nationals, both civilian and military, was an intrusion on their territory, since it claims the island and the surrounding area as its own. However, it was only after (four hours to be precise) South Korea had engaged in an obvious military exercise that North Korea decided to deliberately target both civilians and military in order to kill.
The sovereignty of countries are infringed all the time - last year, Russian bombers infringed on Icelandic airspace during their now-routine maneuvers to test Western military responses. They weren’t shot down and now shots were ever fired. The mere infringement of sovereignty, even if you accept North Korea’s territorial claims, is sufficient to lawfully exercise their right to self-defense. Again, particularly if you accept North Korea’s claims since technically the infringement on their sovereignty was on-going so long as that island was occupied by South Koreans.
Considering that I’m an agnostic, attempts to shoe horn a strawman reason for why I consider NK ‘evil’ is particularly amusing. This has nothing to do with ‘Judeo-Christian concepts of “good” and “evil”’, and everything to do with the actions of the nations in question. Stalin was ‘evil’…not because Jesus said so (:p) but because of his actions. Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao…‘evil’. Because of their actions.
The NK’s actions and the actions of their leader(s) have been evil, not because of some silly ‘Jesus said so’ but because of the harm they have caused. You say you don’t want to get into this discussion here, and I agree. Leaving aside the ‘good’ and ‘evil’ tags, what the NK’s did was WRONG. They fired on civilians in another country for no good reason, possibly touching off a war that could kill millions for no more reason that…well, fuck, for no reason at all afaict. Just because they could do it and get away with it, as they have done so in the past, because the SK’s and US don’t want war and will continue to try and appease the assholes (since you don’t like the term ‘evil’) in Pyongyang.
You are correct…my disapproval and disgust with the NK regime is irrelevant. What is relevant is the basic facts, which you have consistently ignored, handwaving away. You continue to assert that ‘we still don’t know what actually happened’, which is, to put it bluntly, bullshit. We DO know what happened, as long as we are willing to use even a sliver of logic. Given that both sides are telling essentially the same story (with the caveat being who actually controls the island and the surrounding waters), and that no other regional power has come forth with any other tale, I’d say that reasonable people can extrapolate from the available data what more or less happened. Simply handwaving away all that because you don’t trust the SK’s to report the incident correctly is willful ignorance.
So…it comes down to two things. Does South Korea own the territory in question? If not, then is having SK fire into the waters of the disputed territory constitute the right to retaliate against civilians using deadly force?
Which would be a good analysis, were you correct in your assertion that the two Koreas agree on the underlying facts. You are not.
North Korea’s position, which I linked to earlier, is that the South bombarded the North’s current territory (i.e. not the “claimed” territory). The South has generally disputed this. Thus, we have a fundamental disagreement concerning the facts. If the South is correct, then it was indeed the victim of an unprovoked and unjustified attack. If the North is correct, then it took a heavy-handed yet appropriate response to Southern aggression.
The major difference is that Russia and Iceland are not in a state of war. Though it would be justifiable, what would Iceland gain by firing upon Russian planes? Having the right to do something does not necessarily compel one to do it. Airspace violations among friendly nations happen pretty regularly, and nearly always end without military escalation. Airspace violations among enemy nations, on the other hand, tend to end differently:
Thus, if these were, say, Chinese artillery shells that landed in North Korean waters, I’m sure that Pyongyang would have paid no attention. Since the shells were fired by its mortal enemy however, it was justified in responding with deadly force (assuming that the shells did indeed violate its territory).
False, and you’ve already quoted NK’s own quote that falsifies your claim, curiouser and curiouser.
NK claimed that the incident was because of SK “firing shells inside the territorial waters of the DPRK side around Yonphyong Islet in the West Sea of Korea.”. NK has no territorial waters around Yonphyong Island, and in fact they start several miles away from the island and do not envelop it, at all.
Moreover your apologia’s willful avoidance of reality is showing (again) as NK, as of late, disputes the NLL and claimed that the land based boundary is the actual line of demarcation for the maritime boundary. In order to sell your apologia, you would have to claim that NK now accepts the NLL as a valid maritime boundary.
Are you actually claiming that now?
Ah yes, splashes in the water merit the appropriate response of killing human beings. Just like you’re ignoring that your apologia is based on such absurdities as taking some claims at face value in a press release that called NK’s naked aggression “self defense”, you’re also ignoring the fact that “splashes in the water [even if it is in our territory]” do not constitute a valid casus belli in international law or custom. And your argument is again firmly based in Orwellian nonsense; now splashes in empty water that harmed not one single human being are an act of “aggression”.
Rather obviously the relevant international laws do not call for allowing wars of aggression (real aggression, not Orwellian “aggression”) , such as NK attempted to start based on their own claims (that you keep ignoring). Equally obvious is that the international customs of warfare at sea do not find splashes in the water to be a casus belli, either. Nor do they find NK’s murderous behavior as a valid method whereby one may prosecute a just war.
Even more revealing, of course, is that you just went on record, in another thread, as saying that a nation like Iran which killed hundreds of American soldiers in the last few decades and funds, equips, trains and gives safe haven to several racist and genocidal terrorist organizations was the victim of an “unprovoked” cyber-attack on its nuclear production capability, while NK murdering SK citizens over splashes in the water is “appropriate” and “provoked”.
Rather obviously, you fail to understand international law. You’ve just made the common internet mistake of linking to a 3rd party document on the assumption that it represents a binding treaty. It does not. The San Remo Manual is a proposed set of guidelines published by the Red Cross - it has about as much international legal weight as any of my statements would: zero. You can read more about it here:
Quoting from the Red Cross’ own explanation: “The Manual is not a binding document. In view of the extent of uncertainty in the law, the experts decided that it was premature to embark on diplomatic negotiations to draft a treaty on the subject.”
You’re going to have to try harder than that if you are to pull the wool over our eyes. Linking to non-binding documents won’t cut it.
Obviously you’ve just made that up and used that strawman because your argument is incapable of dealing with the facts, namely that I never said it was a binding treaty but provided the Sam Remo manual as the guideline for international customs of warfare at sea. Also known as “customary law”.
The hint, one would think, would be that the hyperlink I provided was “the international customs of warfare at sea”. I can understand that you would prefer to claim that I stated, anywhere, that international customs were identical with binding laws, or binding treaties (which by the way are quite different from laws). Luckily enough, I did not. In point of fact I also clearly delineated between international laws and international customs. One might wonder how you made such a mistake.
.
Wrong, it was published by the International Institute of Humanitarian Law.
Also wrong, it was not a proposed set of guidelines but a manual on the current state of international customary law.
And you have had to deliberately ignore the contents of the link that you just provided in order to make your claim about binding documents. In fact, if you had provided the quote in context (which you just-so-happened to snip, surely not to deliberately cherry pick), readers would have noted that it actually says. Everything in italics is the stuff that you just-so-happened to snip.
It’s interesting that you are both admitting that your views have zero relationship with legality (correct) and claiming that international customary law has no legal weight (incorrect). You are, simply, showcasing your ignorance on the subject. Let me help you on that point:
FinnAgain - you’re now thoroughly confusing your terms, so it is apparent that you have little if any clue as to the functioning of international law. Not that I blame you; it’s extremely murky and convoluted. So, a couple points:
Customary international law is not a binding doctrine, nor is there universal agreement as to what falls under it. Moreover, it may be relevant to domestic statutes (for example, the Alien Tort Statute), but not to international law, which is governed by treaties.
If you are going to claim that North Korea broke international law, you first need to find an applicable treaty. You then need to make sure that North Korea is a signatory. Finally, you have to make sure that the treaty is in force, and that North Korea has not lodged any reservations that would apply here.
Non-binding manuals are not treaties; disregarding them does not break any international laws, no matter how much you may wish it did. The authors may “believe” that it represents international law; without more, it does not. Once again, you want laws, you turn to treaties. You could also turn to international courts that have jurisdiction, but these tend to be regional, and Asia does not have a binding court of this nature (unlike, say, Europe or the Americas). Even if it did, North Korea would have to accept its jurisdiction. The US, for example, does not accept the jurisdiction of the American courts.
The ICJ would not have jurisdiction over this case; it doesn’t fit any of the applicable categories.
Anyway, I don’t have time to really educate you on these matters. If you have time and patience, look up international human rights and international criminal law on your own. Fascinating stuff.
Intersting how all those mistakes just get swept under the rug as the subject keeps getting changed.
NK makes claims in the same communication where it claims that murdering people over splashes in the water is “self defense”? Hey, let’s talk about something else.
You’re using obvious double standards to excuse murder when carried out by a totalitarian nation while arguing against cyber-warfare if used against a totalitarian nation? Say, wouldn’t something like to talk about something else?
Under international law and international customary law NK’s actions are simply not sanctioned? Dontcha know that customary law isn’t a binding treaty?!?
Etc, etc, etc.
Ah well, I’ll point out the funnier bits here:
One might notice I pointed out, right above, that customary international law was not a binding compact and that I’d clearly delineated it. In fact, one might also notice that I noted it was odd that you managed to miss that delineation.
Wrong on both counts, as already cited to you.
But keep on trucking.
How much, exactly, are you getting that straw for? It’s winter, some people in NK are probably going to die of exposure (due to their Glorious God-King). Maybe you should send the kindling over there.
It is, shall we say, quite interesting that you are repeatedly somehow ignoring my actual argument in order to change the subject and savage a strawman. Must just be one of them thar coincidences.
I’m sure, however, that your pose of educator is probably worth, at least, half of the electrons it’s written with.
Maybe even 3/4.
even if… IF South Korean shells landed in waters that are Norht Korean, the appropriate response is to scream about it, and demand compensation for “inconvenienced fisherman” or some other thing.
It is not, by any stretch, appropriate to launch an artillery barrage on an island populated with civilians. EVER.
This would be like me beating the hell out of your wife because your kid cut across my lawn.
The North Koreans are wrong on this one, period end of statement. Any other opinion is sophistry and plain pigheadedness.
But I expect Commissar to keep it up. Or, since he’s been exposed for inconsistencies in his arguement and flaws in his position, he’ll just abandon the thread and go back to his bridge.
AGAIN: if you want to say someone is trolling, do it in the BBQ Pit. If there’s more of this stuff, warnings will be handed out and I may close this thread.
“Appropriateness” is a spectrum, not a one-size-fits-all mandate. Mind you, I’m not defending the killing of unarmed civilians. One could say that the response was somewhat disproportionate. One cannot, however, simply claim that it was inappropriate, or unprovoked.
Er, perhaps, unless the island is also “populated” with the artillery firing into your territory. Then returning fire is a justifiable response (though perhaps still disproportionate).
No, it would be like me shooting you after you shot in my general direction and made me scared for my life.
That’s the difference between you and I. You speak in absolutes and see the world as black and white; I am able to see the murky areas in between. Until you become some sort of omnipotent divine entity, there is little reason for the rest of us to accept your personal opinions as gospel.
Let’s act like adults and keep the insults to a minimum, if you please.