What do you mean by “accept?” Do I accept that it happened? Of course. Do I accept that it was a direct response to Southern provocation? Yes, if there was in fact territorial breach. Do I accept that it was a justified response? Sure. Do I accept that it was a good idea? No; I like people, and I prefer that they stay alive whenever possible.
Going to address all the errors and fallacies in your argument any time soon? I mean, changing the subject is fine and all, but…
This is an absurd and blatant distortion, even for the argument that you’ve put forward so far. Splashes in the water, not near any human being at all, made the NK’s scared for their lives?
How many merfolk are North Korean citizens, exactly?
It’s generally somewhat odd to deny something and then immediately affirm it. You cannot claim that committing murder over splashes in the water is an “appropriate” and a “justified” reaction and then pretend that you’re not defending the killing of civilians.
That’s exactly what you’re doing.
And speaking of you changing the subject when your argument is shown to be totally without merit, how about you quote the relevant portions of international law or international customary law (already cited for you) which say that shells falling into empty water is a valid casus belli.
Unless, of course, your argument is just blowing smoke.
He’s not saying NK was right to shell civilians.
Just that they weren’t completely wrong about it.
Whoosh?
I prefer to think my sarcasm was simply a more succinct version of yours.
Well played.
Where was being “shelled”?
The (Glorious!) Mer Kingdom of Kimjongillia, cruelly attacked by the aggressive running dog imperialist capitalist puppet swine-beasts, the South Koreans. This necessitated the (Glorious!) self defense engaged in by the noble forces of the God-King after they were sorely provoked and vented their justified and appropriate defensive rage upon the South Korean devils.
omfg
dropping shells into empty water in no fucking way justifies shooting innocent people. If you do not get this you’ve failed justified response 101, and need to enroll in the remedial course things that cause one to be an ass 067.
Simple thought experiment. We’re neighbors, you leave for work and return to find out I’ve emptied a shot gun round or two into a pond on your property.
Would you be justified if you started shooting at my house until you heard screaming?
Quite frankly North Korea is ran be evil sociopaths indiscriminate goat raping whores who contentedly let their people starve while they rape “comfort girls”.
What test do you use to determine what responses are or are not justifiable? Or is it more of a “it’s fine if I like it” type of analysis? Personally, I go with a pretty simple theory: violations of sovereignty by an enemy’s armed forces justify, but do not require, a response using lethal force. What do you propose as an alternative?
According to my simple theory, no. You are not my enemy, and so I have no rational need to fear you.
My alternative thought experiment: you and I are sworn enemies, and have been for the better part of a century. We both would like nothing more than to slaughter the other one, but our evenly-matched capabilities have kept us in a sort of peace for decades. All is well, if tense. One day, I am sitting in th bathroom, enjoying myself, when you start firing wildly into my kitchen.
Am I justified in running out of the bathroom, pulling my pants up, and returning fire with an intent to kill?
First of all, I’d like a cite please. Especially on the goat-raping bit; that particular Western allegation is new to me. Secondly, even if this were all true, it would be completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I’m not sure why so many Western individuals persists in trying to ascertain blame on nothing more than their feelings about the two nations involved. Thirdly… wait, goat rape? As opposed to consensual goat sex? How does one know that a goat has consented to intercourse? Need answer fast!
And how was that insane asshole’s “sovereignty” violated? He should be happy he’s not having testicles whittled away with an onion peeler. It’s what he deserves for the suffering he’s inflicted. Anyone who willing keeps him in power is like wise a piece of shit. North Korea’s government is filled with subhuman garbage. Only traitors to the Korean people support Kim Jung fuckwit.
Shelling empty water does not justify murder.
Kitchen implies living area where people could potentially be. Who the fuck did South Korea endanger by shelling empty water?
You right, the comparison is unfair to the goat rapers. Goat rapers don’t let millions starve, and brutalize and oppress. Where as everyone in the NK government is the kind of subhuman monster that does.
Do you honestly think the North Korean people would tolerate that insane monster’s government for more than 5 minutes if they knew what they were missing and had the tools to remove him from power?
Yet again, got a cite for international law or international customary law to back this up, or you just spinning stories? Not that, I’m sure, there’s a reason why you’ve tried to change the subject and drop a tangent that showed you were ignorant about basic facts, using strawmen instead of an actual argument and ignoring all the massive holes in your argument.
Another dishonest and deceptive analogy, who’d have guessed?
Now splashes in waters that weren’t even NK’s territory are analogous to firing into someone’s home. It’s telling that you can’t make your apologia work with anything even close to the actual facts.
Especially given the fact that it’s NK that’s been belligerent and SK that’s been refraining from a justified military response.
Facts get in the way or some screeds, I guess.
Proportionality. South Korean shells falling in North Korean waters did zero damage. Assuming the violation of NK sovereignty was as the NK media described it, there was still zero practical consequence.
Proportionality. If my armed forces violate your sovereignty in way that’s basically symbolic only, it in no way justifies a lethal or property damaging response. A proportionate response would be for NK to launch some shells into empty South Korean waters, or perhaps send a naval vessel to cross the border and then return.
Your analogy fails because shooting into your kitchen wildly implies property damage and a serious risk of harm to you and yours. To repair the analogy, I fire in a controlled fashion well away from your house and any of your possessions or loved ones, but it is over your property line and into fields you own that are lying fallow.
No, you wouldn’t be justified then in returning fire with intent to kill. But according to your doctrine of violation of sovereignty, South Korea would be justified in killing North Koreans for the tunnels that NK dug under the DMZ in the 70s and 90s.
I note that the South Koreans did not kill any North Koreans in retaliation.
I see. In other words, you have no proposed test for determining the justifiability of retribution. Rather, you choose to assign blame based on your feelings. Since your stance is devoid of any logical arguments, I’ll just leave you alone with your hate. My time is better spent debating those that employ reason rather than emotion.
So, have you now found anything to back up your assertions, my friend? Namely, do you now have a North Korean-signed treaty that you believe North Korea violated by retaliating against the South? If not, then we do not have a violation of international law. You can protest all you want; unfortunately, without an actual treaty, you do not have a leg to stand on in this particular argument. I am very much interested in seeing what you can come up with.
This is the best argument so far, but I believe that it disregards the process of gradual escalation. You see, we must begin our analysis with the fact that the two Koreas were at peace and not provoking each other - the status quo, if you will. South Korea destroyed the status quo by violating the North’s sovereignty. This was an escalation, and clearly not a proportionate response to the North’s peaceful behavior. Thus, it was only fair for the North to respond to the South’s escalation by further escalation. One cannot be expected to employ proportionate means when one’s opponent refuses to do so.
See above. Also, I doubt that most nations would ignore your hypothetical scenario. Imagine that a North Korean submarine pulls into San Francisco’s harbor and disgorges a platoon of heavily armed soldiers. Said soldiers harm no one, but march around menacingly while brandishing their weapons at civilians. Would the American army be justified in responding with lethal force against the invaders? I maintain that it would.
You mean, the cites that I had which you mis-described in multiple particulars and whose description you just so happened to thoroughly cherrypick in order to yield a distorted and inaccurate quote?
Or the facts about international law and international custom which you were unaware of?
Or the strawman positions you tried to ascribe to me while refusing to provide proof of your own claims?
Or the multiple gaping logical and factual holes in your argument that, when caught out on, you respond to by changing the subject?
So, I suppose the answer to your friend ol’ buddy ol’ pal is “yes”.
Rather a pathetic strawman, dontcha think?
No, seriously, strawman isn’t a fallacy because it’s a really bangup argument. I pointed out that despite your bull, you could not point to NK’s actions being in accord with international law or international customary law. You responded by changing the subject and flinging strawmen… just like now.
Of course, you’re also showcasing your ignorance again and pretending that treaties are the substance of international law. If you understood the subject, you’d understand that treaties between two nations can be used to resolve disputes, but they do not make up international law.
It’s interesting that you evidently have no idea what international law is, as you keep referring to treaties between two individual nations. It’s… odd. Evidently you think that if the US and Canada agree to some sort of quote scheme on fishing rights and one side or the other takes a mackerel too many, that they’re now in violation of international law.
It’s a view that is, shall we say, slightly divorced from reality. You’re also showcasing ignorance again, as you are evidently unaware that several pieces of actual intentional law are considered binding even on non-signatories due to their nature as universal codes of conduct.
But of course while this is just another of your attempts to change the subject as my point was that your position was totally unsupportable and your fiction was that I was citing a specific breach of international law.
I’m going to have to wait a long, long time for you to point out anywhere in international law or international customary law where splashes in empty ocean is a casus belli, eh?
Or do we get more dishonest analogies about shooting into someone’s home and invading San Fransisco and threatening people and self defense on NK’s part and blah blah blah?
Got Cite?
So you ignore NK torpedoing an SK navel vessel, unsurprising.
Also, you reveal that you were being less than accurate when you claimed that you had no way of knowing what happened. You’re now parroting NK’s own claims about a “violation of sovereignty”.
Go figure, your rhetoric is a stalking horse.
FinnAgain - while your verbose and skillful dancing around the question is cute and entertaining, I will ask one last time: do you or do you not have a specific cite to a specific treaty that you believe North Korea violated during the specific incident in question?
Yeah… didn’t think so.
Did you miss the point where the other poster was moderated and thus decided it’s okay for you to cast out another insult?
I have no idea if you actually like or dislike people in general; however, your assertion that you prefer they stay alive whenever possible is demonstrably false given your previous defense of the Berlin Wall and the attendant murders.
By the way, do you consider the Armistice which ended active combat between South Korea and its allies on one side and North Korea and its allies on the other to be a treaty? A simple “yes” or “no” will suffice.