“Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.”
Note that the only requirements for triggering self-defense are:
(1) You are a UN member.
(2) Another nation attacked you.
The analogy fails on a number of points, not the least of which that Damuri is trying to bring up an irrelevant subject when this topic is North Korea’s actions. And, of course, launching unguided rockets in the direction of populated areas is a different action that controlling the trajectory of artillery so that it lands in the empty, open ocean (that most likely did not belong to the ‘provoked’ party in any case).
Unless of course someone is going to provide a cite for those long-suffering North Korean merfolk.
If? Are you denying that the BM-21 is totally unsuitable for targeted attacks and has a comparatively huge CEP? If you’re claiming that it is possible to engage in discriminating targeting with the BM-21, I suggest you provide a cite to that effect. Because the fact is, it’s impossible.
No such thing is clear, at all. Coincidentally, it also isn’t true.
It is true that NK used unguided rockets to indiscriminately hit Yeonpyeong and had no physically possible way to limit damage to any one specific location, especially on an island that’s less than 3 square miles in area. And we know this because of the weaponry they chose to use, as well as the damage that the island suffered.
But you don’t know that.
Irrelevant (and inaccurate) personal sniping. Effective!
Of course, as pointed out numerous times, I don’t have to rely on anything at it’s Commissar who made the claims as has provided exactly zero cites to support his claims or his… unique… interpretation of international law. As for the operational definition of a valid casus belli, it’s pretty clear. (Hint: it’s got to do with actual provocations as opposed to your nonsense, which brings me to…)
While I could probably do that, I guess, so far I’ve been content to belittle the absurdity you’ve used as an argument where you repeatedly commit the fallacy of equivocation and conflate any action which is “provocative” with an actual provocation to military force, which is a casus belli.
And splashes in the open ocean, aint.
Deju vu, all over again.
Facts bounce off your claims at a remarkable rate.
Don’t worry, you’ll get used to it. He takes a very adversarial stance in great debates, its just his personality. It irritates a lot of people but you’ll get used to it.
Then can we proceed on the basis that I’m not a NK apologist or that I am trying to justify or excuse their actions. I am trying to correct the impression that NK made some sort of unprovoked attack targetting civilians.
I don’t think the response was proportional but I think it was provoked.
“My argument is not an apologia for North Korea’s actions! I’m just trying to argue that their completely unprovoked act of indiscriminate aggression against both military targets and civilians… wasn’t.
It’s totally different!”
I think you are being a bit unfair, Finn. After all, who is thinking of all those poor fish and marine mammals who were indiscriminately and aggressively attacked in an unbridled and unprovoked act of, er, unprovoked imperialistic and anti-environmentally friendly aggression? The North were simply responding in kind to such ecological capitalist running dog tactics!
My guess is that they took several hours to reply to this unprovoked attack on the seas because they were carefully evaluating the numbers and types of friendly sea creatures harmed by the evil South. Not only that, there are rumors that the South Koreans, while they were firing, were watching South Park and screaming ‘FUUUCK YOU WHALE! FUUUCK YOU DOLPHIN!’ at the top of their lungs, even though they weren’t Japanese…
Well, first you’d have to establish that the waters were North Korean (them just saying so isn’t enough), and that even if they were, how some splashes provokes a deadly response that was, at best, indifferent to civilians who could get killed in the process.
I trust Israel need not be invoked again in this thread.
Nork is slang for North Korean.
For some reason, that’s always reminded me of the word “Noid”.
An advertising campaign that was provocative to anybody who might be named Noid, especially if they were also crazy.Therefore, Kenneth Noid’s hostage-taking was not an unprovoked act of a lunatic.
Oh, and North Korea indiscriminately firing about 200 unguided rockets at a populated island after some SK shells (allegedly) fell in the open ocean that NK claims as its own was also not an unprovoked act of a lunatic nation.
What I see coming from the ones trying to find excuses for this NK violent episode is a tactic similar to what creationists use: teach the controversy. That way even if their position is a baseless one, the efforts to demand “equal time” are expected by them to lead many to assume that the truth lies in the middle. (Benefiting more the baseless position than the more supported one)
In a situation where a despotic government does not even allow freedom of the press one has to give preference to the side that does. Are there still doubts? Then one checks outside sources that in the past demonstrated to be at odds even with the USA and SK, if after that the “teach the controversy” guys continue one then has to point and laugh at their attempts to prop up points that don’t even have a base.
