NKorea warns of war if punished for ship sinking

108 posts / 0 new
Last post
Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

Fidel wrote:

The US nuclear sub Ohio was there for a joint military exercise, was it not? Why dock at a port in South Korea at all if the water is too shallow to float even a dinghy as you claim?

Have you ever been on a boat, Bec.De.Corbin?

 

Yes, I bass fish from a boat almost weekly in the summertime. You're being too simplistic (on purpose I suspect but I'll play along) when implying that I'm saying the costal waters around Korea is too shallow to float a submarine. What I'm saying is coastal waters like what is around Korea is not well suited for large nuclear submarine OPERATIONS... the fact that you don't understand what I'm saying is on you, not me.

 

Quote:
[url=http://www.petitiononline.com/60korea/petition.html]65th anniversary of the US Military occupation of South Korea[/url] Sign the petition

 

No thank you...

 

Quote:
[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/752055.stm]30th anniversary of the Kwangju massacre 1980[/url] 2000 pro-democracy protesters murdered while defying another US-backed dictator

 

LOL, my wife is from Kwangju, I showed her this thread and she want's to know what that has to do with North Korea killing those sailors and why are you defending North Korea for doing it. I told here your a Communist (correct me if I'm wrong) and she just... well.Yell

Also for those that are following along I found this Youtube bit about the torpedo and the damage on the ship. It's taken from one of the shows I watched. It's in Korean in the begining but there's some english near the end. It explains how the damage shows an expolsion from under the ship.

It's the first video on the list.

http://article.wn.com/view/2010/03/30/S_Korean_President_Visits_Waters_Where_Ship_Sank/

 

 

 

 

 

Fidel

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:
What I'm saying is coastal waters like what is around Korea is not well suited for large nuclear submarine OPERATIONS... the fact that you don't understand what I'm saying is on you, not me.

Then why would ROKN officials be contemplating [url=http://www.nti.org/db/submarines/skorea/import.html]nuclear-propelled submarines by 2012[/url] if, as you say,  the water around South Korea is too shallow for even a rubber dinghy? Will they have to dredge the shelf around the peninsula so that these things don't run aground? Will they have to fit the subs with an amphibious chassis and all-wheel drive? Give us a hint here, Harry, I mean, Bec.

In all seriousness, I don't think you understand what you're saying either, so that makes two of us. Are you now trying to suggest that South Korea is land-locked and without sea ports for submarines(and the USS Ohio, too) to dock?

How long was the last fish caught, Harry, I mean, Bec?

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

  

I do catch and release for the most part, I average about 12 to 16 inches. My biggest catch was 22 ½ inches. 14 inches is the legal keeper limit.

The South Koreans have always tried to build weapons systems tailor made for the needs of their armed forces. The SSX class nuclear submarine your talking about would have a displacement of about 4,000 tons, the USS Ohio has a 16,400 ton displacement, the Los Angles Class, an attack submarine, is about 6,800 tons. The "proposed" South Korean nuclear submarine is going to be smaller than any US nuclear submarine by over several thousand tons. Why is that? I'd say the Koreans know that smaller submarines are better suited for their coastal waters.

Sure, you could sail an Ohio class sub around in the waters of the Korean coastline, I'm sure it's been done. The water where that destroyer was sunk was between 5o and 450 feet deep. I don't know about you but I'd rather have the smaller more nimble submarine in waters like that. .

For the most part US nuclear submarines are designed for deep water operations, not that there are some exceptions. The assertion you made about the USA restricting Korean submarines to make way for their own in Korean coastal waters is, based on operational doctrine, groundless.     

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/rok/kss-3.htm

 

NorthReport

OMG how could S Korea be behaving in such a civilized way such as going to the UN eh Jingles. Smile

S. Korea to take ship sinking case to UN Security Council

 

 

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2010-05/23/c_13310925.htm

Frmrsldr

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

The South Koreans have always tried to build weapons systems tailor made for the needs of their armed forces. The SSX class nuclear submarine your talking about would have a displacement of about 4,000 tons, the USS Ohio has a 16,400 ton displacement, the Los Angles Class, an attack submarine, is about 6,800 tons. The "proposed" South Korean nuclear submarine is going to be smaller than any US nuclear submarine by over several thousand tons. Why is that? I'd say the Koreans know that smaller submarines are better suited for their coastal waters.

 

The purpose of nuclear powered submarines is for underwater endurance which suggests long deap sea operations. Given the small area of Korean peninsular coastline and the shallowness of its waters, why would either of the Korea's need (in an absolute sense) nuclear powered submarines. Does the South Korean government think they will get "more bang for their buck" by having fewer submarines patroling for longer? Less is more - efficient, effective and economical?

For North Korea, I can see it as a case of 'conspicuous consumption' just like its atomic bombs. No practical need, just showing off and brinksmanship diplomacy for food and financial aid.

Frmrsldr

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

Also for those that are following along I found this Youtube bit about the torpedo and the damage on the ship. It's taken from one of the shows I watched. It's in Korean in the begining but there's some english near the end. It explains how the damage shows an expolsion from under the ship.

It's the first video on the list.

http://article.wn.com/view/2010/03/30/S_Korean_President_Visits_Waters_Where_Ship_Sank/

The torpedo theory is being hyped, but I don't think the possibility of a submerged sea mine can be ruled out.

 

 

 

 

 

Fidel

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:
The South Koreans have always tried to build weapons systems tailor made for the needs of their armed forces.

The South Koreans do whatever Uncle Sam tells them to, just like our colonial administrators in Ottawa do as instructed by Warshington. SK is part of a "mutual logistics support agreement" with the US Military that extends from Japan and South Korea in the northeast Asian region south to Australia, and from Hawaii in the west to Singapore and Diego Garcia island in the Indian Ocean to the east.

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:
Sure, you could sail an Ohio class sub around in the waters of the Korean coastline, I'm sure it's been done.

Yes it has been done. It's a fact. And there is no shortage of water with the peninsula surrounded on all sides by the Yellow Sea, China Sea and Sea of Japan. That's a lot of water to hide just a few nuclear-propelled, nuclear-armed submarines, don't you think? Bec, did you know that it only takes a cup of water to drown a person? Bec, how many cups of water are there in the South China Sea?

Buddy Kat

 

I don’t buy the rumsfield type power point presentation on torpedo parts. We all know the US would love to pin every single disaster on North Korea and Iran. The flavor of the week is North Korea and the rumor mill is already running rampant in the US that North Korea sank the bp oil rig…These are the facts. Anybody can present an axle with some rusty gears and say “ here is the proof”. The sick thing is that people suck up this crap like it’s gospel.

 

Just think the US and BP could get North Korea to pay thru sanctions etc . for the cleanup. Don’t think that’s crossing their minds?

What is unfortunate is like one fellow said earlier in the thread and that is that North Korea is a very sensitive nation regarding saving face and take threats very seriousl;y. You will note they ramped up their nuke program when Bush threatened them with the "list". They didn't roll over, they responded with vigilance. Now they have the nuke they desired and if they ever use them  ...You can point your finger at one nation ..the USA. The US seem to have this problem of sticking their nose in places they don't belong...it's just a matter of time before they get a big punch in it. Like 911 wasn't a wake up call.

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

Fidel, whatever. Here's how your bubbies in North Korea act.

 

http://english.cri.cn/6966/2010/05/24/1821s571693.htm North Korea vows to shoot at loadspeakers on boarder

 

To everyone elese who don't think it was a North Korean torpedo, who or what do you think sank that destroyer?

Frmrsldr

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

To everyone elese who don't think it was a North Korean torpedo, who or what do you think sank that destroyer?

A submerged sea mine (see above.)

As of the most recent news, the U.S.A. is painfully obviously using this opportunity to try to engage in regime change concerning North Korea. Regime change by any means other than a shooting war. Pentagon payback for North Korea's missile and atomic bomb tests, which I see as an attempt to bring the spotlight back to North Korea which desperately needs U.S. and Western financial and food aid.

Fidel

[url=http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/LE05Dg01.html]Pyongyang sees US role in Cheonan sinking[/url]

No hard evidence linking North Korea to ship destruction

Quote:
 Mission impossible
There are four important points that make it clear that a North Korean submarine did not sink the South Korean corvette.

Fact 1.North Korean submarines are not stealthy enough to penetrate heavily guarded South Korean waters at night and remain undetected by the highly touted anti-submarine warfare units of the American and South Korean forces. A North Korean submarine would be unable to outmaneuver an awesome array of high-tech Aegis warships, identify the corvette Cheonan and then slice it in two with a torpedo before escaping unscathed, leaving no trace of its identity.

Fact 2. The sinking took place not in North Korean waters but well inside tightly guarded South Korean waters, where a slow-moving North Korean submarine would have great difficulty operating covertly and safely, unless it was equipped with AIP (air-independent propulsion) technology.

Fact 2: The disaster took place precisely in the waters where what the Pentagon has called "one of the world's largest simulated exercises" was underway. This war exercise, known as "Key Resolve/Foal Eagle" did not end on March 18 as was reported but actually ran from March 18 to April 30.

Fact 3: The Key Resolve/Foal Eagle exercise on the West Sea near the Northern Limit Line (NLL) was aimed at keeping a more watchful eye on North Korea as well as training for the destruction of weapons of mass destruction in the North. It involved scores of shiny, ultra-modern US and South Korean warships equipped with the latest technology.[...]

Fact 4: Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg said on March 30 that he doubted there was North Korean involvement in the sinking: "Obviously the full investigation needs to go forward. But to my knowledge, there's no reason to believe or to be concerned that that may have been the cause."

General Walter Sharp, US Forces Korea (USFK) commander, also saw no link between North Korea and the sinking. In an April 6 press conference, he said: "We, as Combined Forces Command and the ROK [Republic of Korea] Joint Chief of Staff, watch North Korea very closely every single day of the year and we continue to do that right now. And again, as this has been said, we see no unusual activity at this time."

Wow, I think there are some extra facts there that some people are unaware of. Was it friendly fire?

NorthReport

Jeesh!

This thread is starting to sound like those other threads that suggest the USA was behind the attacks on the World Trade Centre.

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

It's about time you got around to blaming the USA Fidel. I was begining to wounder...Wink

 

To each their own.

 

Ok so far we have:

 

Bek De Corbin: North Korean torpedo attack

 

Frmrsldr: A submerged sea mine (owner unknown)

 

Fidel: USA plot of some kind

 

Others are welcomed to "vote"; just keep it simple: 3 or 4 words Smile

 

 

 

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

 

Ok stop... Fidel this is not about 9-11, has NOTHING to do with 9-11 and even if you didn't say those magic numbers first please do not divert this thread... Feel free to blame the USA all you want for sinking that ship, just stay on topic... I'd really appreciate it if you changed that post to something more on topic and remove that link.

I'm asking you nice, Okay?

 

Fidel

NorthReport wrote:

Jeesh!

This thread is starting to sound like those other threads that suggest the USA was behind the attacks on the World Trade Centre.

I'd like to believe crazy George government's official conspiracy theory and ongoing today. I really would.

The problem I have with it is the dearth of legal evidence pointing to anyone not previously associated with the CIA and Pentagon in some way. It's like Six degrees of Kevin Bacon, Except that instead of Kevin Bacon being all points central, it's the FBI, CIA, and US Military at the centre of controversty and who pretend to be at odds with each other for the sake of insulating cosmetic government from all blame and accountability, and that's fascism.

 Apparently none of this is an issue for people who are far less discerning of things in general.

Does the US Military or their colonials in Seoul have any real evidence wrt this matter?

[url=http://911blogger.com/node/20970]Whistle blower Sibel Edmonds testimony under oath now available on video[/url] 9/11 blogger

[IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v697/rabblerabble/gladio.jpg[/IMG]

Fidel

Bec, your accusations amount to little more than conspiracy theory. You have no proof, and neither does the Gladio gang apparently.

And if the Gladio gang have no proof implicating North Korea, then basic investigative policing theory suggests somewhere along the way that the perps are sometimes known of or even related to the victims. They say most car accidents happen within a certain close proximity to the driver's home, if you know what I mean.

My theory on this for now is that it was either friendly fire or a false flag op. That country whose economy is largely based on war is probably looking for another reason to go to war. And theyve been known to find trumped up reasons for warfiteering as the whole world knows by now.

[IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v697/rabblerabble/boatsober.jpg[/IMG]

If the Iranian airbus massacre is anything to go by, then whoever did this will likely receive medals of merit from the US Military.

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

Frmrsldr wrote:

The purpose of nuclear powered submarines is for underwater endurance which suggests long deap sea operations. Given the small area of Korean peninsular coastline and the shallowness of its waters, why would either of the Korea's need (in an absolute sense) nuclear powered submarines. Does the South Korean government think they will get "more bang for their buck" by having fewer submarines patroling for longer? Less is more - efficient, effective and economical?

For North Korea, I can see it as a case of 'conspicuous consumption' just like its atomic bombs. No practical need, just showing off and brinksmanship diplomacy for food and financial aid.

 

I think the ability to stay submerged for days if not weeks is what they are looking for; diesel electric subs can't do that. Think of it, they can leave port, submerge and go do what they have to do for weeks on end then reappear on the surface in the exact same spot.

There is also speculation by some geo political analysts that South Korea wants nuclear powered subs as a counter to its more traditional enemies: Japan and China. But that is debate for another thread...

Sometimes cultures based on face are as hard for us (in the West) to understand as cultures based on revenge.

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

Fidel wrote:

Bec, your accusations amount to little more than conspiracy theory. You have no proof, and neither does the Gladio gang apparently.

 

Fidel if you don't believe those torpedo parts pictured on post one aren't from what sunk that ship then we'll just have to agree to disagree (again). Neither of us is going to convince the other to change their minds. I'm good with that.

 

 Your vote is noted in the list... be happy with that.Smile

Centrist

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:
I think the ability to stay submerged for days if not weeks is what they are looking for; diesel electric subs can't do that.

Surprisigly enough, the highly advanced German Type 212 class submarine features diesel propulsion and an additional air-independent propulsion system permitting the Type 212 to stay submerged for up to three weeks without surfacing and with no exhaust heat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_212_submarine

Edited to Add: In fact, the export version, designated as Type 214, has been purchased by the Republic of Korea Navy:

Quote:
The Republic of Korea Navy has ordered nine Type 214 submarines, designated as Son Won-Il class, to be built in Korea by Hyundai Heavy Industries and Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engineering; three first batch models had entered service since 2007, and six second batch models will enter service from 2012.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_214_submarine

 

Fidel

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:
Fidel if you don't believe those torpedo parts pictured on post one aren't from what sunk that ship then we'll just have to agree to disagree (again). Neither of us is going to convince the other to change their minds. I'm good with that.

And don't forget General Walter Sharp, US Forces Korea (USFK) commander as well as Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg.

They disagree with you, too

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

Only if you don't forget they made that statement before May 5th, before the ship halves were raised and BEFORE they found the torpedo partsTongue out.

 

I know it's hard to believe generals can be diplomatic at times but it does happen.

NorthReport

This is like the WMD in Iraq eh, the only difference here being that they have actually found the weapon. Laughing

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

Centrist wrote:

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:
I think the ability to stay submerged for days if not weeks is what they are looking for; diesel electric subs can't do that.

Surprisigly enough, the highly advanced German Type 212 class submarine features diesel propulsion and an additional air-independent propulsion system permitting the Type 212 to stay submerged for up to three weeks without surfacing and with no exhaust heat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_212_submarine

Edited to Add: In fact, the export version, designated as Type 214, has been purchased by the Republic of Korea Navy:

Quote:
The Republic of Korea Navy has ordered nine Type 214 submarines, designated as Son Won-Il class, to be built in Korea by Hyundai Heavy Industries and Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engineering; three first batch models had entered service since 2007, and six second batch models will enter service from 2012.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_214_submarine

 

 

Wow I had no idea they can say down THAT long... weeks. I wonder how fast the can run while persevering their batteries to last that long? With nuclear power you wouldn't have to worry about that.

Fidel

NorthReport wrote:

This is like the WMD in Iraq eh, the only difference here being that they have actually found the weapon. Laughing

Ever heard of a "throwdown"? Smile

Have you ever heard of circumstantial evidence? Laughing

Would you agree to a death sentence based on circumstantial evidence of your own guilt? Because in this case, the North Koreans are protesting similarly, and there's a chance it's for good reason.

[url=http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=264709845600167246#]Gladio: The Ringmasters Pt 1[/url] BBC

Yep it's something akin to believing that two amateur Cessna pilots dominated NORAD air space for almost two hours on 9/11/01, and with only TWO planes they brought down THREE buildings in record time!!

Except in this case there was a joint US-Korean naval exercise happening in the exact same vicinity as where the ship was allegedly torpedoed. The NKoreans must have some kind of stealthy submarine technology to have maneuvered into waters which were teeming with US and South Korean navy ships loaded to the gills with the latest radar and sonar technology. They must be feeling like complete fools about now for having downed one of their own and wanting to place blame elsewhere.

NDPP

Canada Imposes Sanctions on North Korea

http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/05/24/south-korea024.html

"Canada has condemned the reckless North Korean regime for this egregious violation of international law and its blatant disregard of its international obligations,' Harper said in the statement. He also pledged Canada's support for South Korean President Lee Myung Bak's decision to respond decisively to 'the act of aggression.."

Fidel

And that's all that this false flag op was intended to achieve, a suspicion of North Korea's guilt in order to tighten international grips of the US-led medieval siege of North Korea.

They haven't produced any hard evidence for 9/11 guilt.

And The Gladio Gang won't be producing any hard evidence of NK's involvement with the Cheonan sinking.

This is how nuclear-armed thugs operate.

And this is how our stoogeocrats in Ottawa are led by their nose-hairs from Warshington as per usual.

Aye-aye, Uncle Sam, yes sir, on the double!!

NDPP

Korean Peninsula to Become Another Hotspot

http://english.pravda.ru/world/asia/113483-1/

"It is obvious now that the USA, South Korea and Japan will insist on the introduction of sanctions against the North. Russia and China may not share their views. The investigation held in the sinking of the South Korean corvette was conducted by US allies. Experts from neutral states did not take part in it, which makes one doubt what happened in the Yellow Sea.."

good dog Canada!

Frmrsldr

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

It's about time you got around to blaming the USA Fidel. I was begining to wounder...Wink

 

To each their own.

 

Ok so far we have:

 

Bek De Corbin: North Korean torpedo attack

 

Frmrsldr: A submerged sea mine (owner unknown)

Frmrsldr wrote:
North Korean (or bought from allies) or South Korean (or bought from allies)

 

Fidel: USA plot of some kind

 

Others are welcomed to "vote"; just keep it simple: 3 or 4 words Smile

 

 

 

Frmrsldr

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

 

Sometimes cultures based on face are as hard for us (in the West) to understand ...

Frmrsldr wrote:

... I can see it as a case of 'conspicuous consumption' just like its atomic bombs. No practical need, just showing off ...

In this case, I would describe the situation as the arms industry perverting the South Korean desire to show or maintain "face" into what I describe above as 'conspicuous consumption'. South Korea doesn't need nuclear powered submarines, but in the desire to maximize its profit margins, the arms industry will sell weapons to (fill in blank) South Korea any way it can.

Arms industry: "I know, we are selling the instruments of death. But hey, that's how we make our living."*

*Sung to the tune of the Rolling Stones' "It's Only Rock 'n' Roll."

Fidel

Yeah the North Koreans shouldn't be too upset. They likely knew that medieval sanctions were going to be tightened for whatever trumped up reason. I do believe it's all merely a marketing ploy as Former Soldier says. It's like how the mafia markets protection insurance - lower Korea was going to be sold something they didn't need either way, and probably for too much money.

Frmrsldr

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

Fidel if you don't believe those torpedo parts pictured on post one aren't from what sunk that ship then we'll just have to agree to disagree (again). Neither of us is going to convince the other to change their minds. I'm good with that.

I don't believe in those 'torpedo parts' pictured on the post either.

They look like a drive shaft from a naval engine. The forensic evidence from the ship I have heard of is explosives residue and 'torpedo' fragments.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6460FC20100507

If it was a torpedo, then this article would suggest that it was a South Korean or American (purchased) torpedo that was fired by a South Korean or U.S. ship.

Unless international arms industries and/or dealers are willing to sell to the highest bidder, regardless of who they are.

Fidel

Yeah our stooges should receive bad puppet awards.

Frmrsldr

NoDifferencePartyPooper wrote:

Canada Imposes Sanctions on North Korea

http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/05/24/south-korea024.html

"Canada has condemned the reckless North Korean regime for this egregious violation of international law and its blatant disregard of its international obligations,' Harper said in the statement. He also pledged Canada's support for South Korean President Lee Myung Bak's decision to respond decisively to 'the act of aggression.."

Blah, blah, blah. What a bunch of bullshit.

What about our egregious violation of international law and blatant disregard of international obligations concerning our illegal war of aggression against Afghanistan?

If you believe North Korea has committed these acts, then you belive that "we are living up to our international obligation of the NATO Charter where 'a criminal act of terrorism by a non state actor against one (NATO) member is considered an act of armed military aggression by a state against all (NATO) members' and that the Afghan war is U.N. mandated (it's not), NATO led" bullshit.

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

  

Again you get more details if you can watch South Korean news, those parts on display match an unexploded North Korean torpedo the South recovered a few years ago. That is not mentioned in the MSM articles I've seen. But that's all a mute point as we are all entrenched in our positions here and some here will insist it's all propaganda or even more proof of a conspiracy. As I said before nobody is going to convince anybody to change their minds. I'm convinced it's important to some of you that you get the last word in on a thread so this will be my last post on this.  

In the end the ball is in North Korea's court as to if this is going to lead to a shooting war or not. I'm sure they are going to throw a big hissy fit for a while but I doubt war will come of this enough to still be planning on going over to Korea with my wife this summer.

Thank you for all participating. I enjoyed the debate.

 

 

Frmrsldr

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

Again you get more details if you can watch South Korean news, those parts on display match an unexploded North Korean torpedo the South recovered a few years ago.

What those who support the torpedo theory are overlooking is: If a torpedo successfully blew the hole in the South Korean ship we've seen in news pictures, then there wouldn't be such large intact (torpedo) parts, there would, at best, only be torpedo fragments - as I mentioned above.

NDPP

The Sinking Of the Cheonan - We Are Being Lied To

http://alfredkewl.blogspot.com/2010/05/sinking-of-cheonan-we-are-being-l...

"It is clear that we are being lied to and manipulated into believing that North Korea is behind the sinking of the South Korean vessel, the Cheonan.."

The ICG is a CIA front group from way back  - this is a setup

NDPP

Who Sank Cheonan?

http://japanfocus.org/-Tanaka-Sakai/3361

"A new stage in the US-Korean War and US-China Relations.."

Caissa

North Korea says it will sever all ties and communication with Seoul as retaliation for what it calls a "smear campaign" over the sinking of a South Korean warship.

North Korea's official Korean Central News Agency quoted the Committee for the Peaceful Reunification of Korea as saying late Tuesday that Pyongyang would also expel all South Koreans working at a joint industrial park in the border town of Kaesong.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/05/25/north-korea-ship-retaliation.html#ixzz0oxvbXRPG

jacki-mo

There seems to be a weird pattern on Babble: Anytime a Western nation commits a crime most Babblers condem it and assume the story is true. When a repressive/commie type country does something it is assumed to be a frame up and just not true.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

jacki-mo wrote:

There seems to be a weird pattern on Babble: Anytime a Western nation commits a crime most Babblers condem it and assume the story is true. When a repressive/commie type country does something it is assumed to be a frame up and just not true.

 

Selective reading?  Funny that, EH?  Interesting choice of descriptors.  And strange to see it applied collectively to "babble"

Fidel

jacki-mo wrote:

There seems to be a weird pattern on Babble: Anytime a Western nation commits a crime most Babblers condem it and assume the story is true. When a repressive/commie type country does something it is assumed to be a frame up and just not true.

And never mind the fact that certain country's economy next door to us is largely based on war.

And we won't mention the Gulf of Tonkin incident, or the fact that VietNam war vets have said they were lied to constantly with respect to being told by US military and government that they were being sent to Vietnam to stop communists from invading a democratic South VietNam. Yeah that was a big-huge lie then.

They lied about not supporting the biggest mass murderer since Adolf Hitler in Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge. They did.

And then we've enjoyed the crazy George I&II lies with respect to Iraq and Afghanistan since 1991. All big fat lies for purposes of waging really expensive, US-taxpayer funded wars.

Hitler was said to be be the biggest liar of the last century. I think we owe it to past generations not to be sucked in again and again and again, like millions have been already.

kropotkin1951

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

Quote:
My first reaction when the news was reported was why would North Korea do such a dumb thing.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/asia_pacific/10130909.stm

Quote:

Why would North Korea have taken such a calculated risk, and for what purpose?

Some observers have suggested that it may have been a simple act of retaliation.

The Cheonan sank close to the disputed sea boundary between North and South Korean territorial waters, along which the two navies have clashed a number of times in the past decade.

The most recent incident, last November, left a North Korean ship in flames, with reported casualties amongst the crew.

Good question if you don't follow Korean politics and history. But then because I have a Korean spouse I understand their language, get their news via satellite and have a vested interest in their politics much more than most here. I suspect it's about retaliation for North Korea's humiliation from their last naval skirmish with the South Korean navy in that area last year. Like most Asian societies, in Korea, lose of face is not taken lightly; especially on a national level.

 

This seems to be your only possible motivation for the North but the North claims it didn't sink it.  How much face saving does one get from doing an action you don't acknowledge as your own.  That is not a cultural argument it is a illogical argument.  If the North was trying to save or gain face by doing something they then would need to claim the action or it gives them nothing.

I distrust all military intelligence agencies like I distrust all spies.  Why believe anyone that you know will lie if they believe it is in the security interest of their country?  Since I know they lie sometimes I am not willing to accept their testimony uncritically.  It is called the credibility of a witness.  The less credibility the more prove required.  I have no idea and really don't care who sank this war ship. I do believe the arms races is the wrong direction for this planet but this seems to be a very nice excuse for more weapons to be purchased instead of services for people. Long live the arms dealers, the purveyors of the most perfect of capitalist enterprises.  A nuclear sub in every port!!!   That is what is needed to bring peace to the world more nuclear subs.  I'd laugh it it wasn't so fucking serious and evil.

Fidel

[url=http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=19351]War Pretext Incident? The Sinking of the South Korean Corvette in the Yellow Sea.[/url]  Was the Evidence Forged?

Quote:
The key peace of evidence cited is a fragment of a torpedo propeller – somehow recovered at the final phase of the investigation - with a marking which reads “No. 1” and matches a North Korean torpedo found 7 years ago in the Yellow Sea. Considering that the blast was allegedly caused by a torpedo carrying a net explosive weight of 250 kg, investigators must have been remarkably lucky to find the right fragment with the marking implicating North Korea.The simple marking “№ 1”, which is the sole indication of the country of origin of the torpedo, possibly could write in the same manner on a South Korean torpedo too.

Frmrsldr

Fidel wrote:

[url=http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=19351]War Pretext Incident? The Sinking of the South Korean Corvette in the Yellow Sea.[/url]  Was the Evidence Forged?

Quote:
The key peace of evidence cited is a fragment of a torpedo propeller – somehow recovered at the final phase of the investigation - with a marking which reads “No. 1” and matches a North Korean torpedo found 7 years ago in the Yellow Sea. Considering that the blast was allegedly caused by a torpedo carrying a net explosive weight of 250 kg, investigators must have been remarkably lucky to find the right fragment with the marking implicating North Korea.The simple marking “№ 1”, which is the sole indication of the country of origin of the torpedo, possibly could write in the same manner on a South Korean torpedo too.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6460FC20100507

Was it even a torpedo (assuming that's what it is) of North Korean (or Chinese) origin?

See post #81 above.

Fidel

Former [email protected] #81 wrote:
I don't believe in those 'torpedo parts' pictured on the post either.

They look like a drive shaft from a naval engine. The forensic evidence from the ship I have heard of is explosives residue and 'torpedo' fragments.

I'll have to take your word for it, FrmrSldr. I wouldn't be able to tell one end of a bomb from another. My gut feeling on this tells me that you're right - it probably was not a torpedo of any kind that blew up the Cheonan.

Frmrsldr

Did an American mine sink the Cheonan?

Yoichi Shimatsu wrote:

... The South Korean government displayed to the press the intact propeller shaft of a torpedo that supposedly struck the Cheonan. Since torpedoes travel between 40-50 knots per hour (which is faster than collision tests for cars), a drive shaft would crumble upon impacting the hull and its bearing and struts would be shattered or bent by the high-powered blast.

The initial South Korean review stated that the explosive was gunpowder, which would conform to North Korea's crude munitions. This claim was later overturned by the inquiry board, which found the chemical residues to be similar to German advanced explosives. Due to sanctions against Pyongyang and its few allies, it is hardly credible that North Korea could obtain NATO-grade ordnance.

http://newamericamedia.org/2010/05/did-an-american-mine-sink-the-south-k...

NDPP

Beijing Suspects False Flag Attack on South Korean Corvette

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=19433

"WMR's intelligence sources in Asia suspect that the March attack on the South Korean Navy anti-submarine warfare corvette, the Cheonan was a false flag attack designed to appear as coming from North Korea..'

Frmrsldr

China Premier avoids backing sanctions for North Korea:

Young-Joon Ahn AP News wrote:

China's premier expressed no support for proposed U.N. sanctions against ally North Korea over its alleged sinking of a South Korean warship, declining Sunday to join other key nations in blaming Pyongyang.

... Yang Moo-jin, a professor at the University of North Korean Studies in Seoul, said he doubted the Security Council would take up the Cheonan case.

http://wire.antiwar.com/2010/05/30/china-premier-avoids-backing-sanction...

Fidel

[url=http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FalseFlagOperation]False Flag Operation[/url] from "TVTropes.org"

Whenever people from one nation or organization pretend to be members of another, to stir up trouble. Common scenarios include: 

  • Pretending to be an enemy and attacking another enemy, to get them to fight; 
  • Pretending to be an enemy and attacking yourself, to justify a counterattack; 
  • Pretending to be a member of a terrorist organization and attacking your own people, to better control them.
  • In espionage, pretending to be from either the victim's nation or an allied one to fool someone into betraying secrets.

It's not limited to violence; spreading misinformation or committing sabotage in someone else's name can work wonders too. Basically it is a Frameup scaled up to target large organizations and nations.

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

 

Quote:

3. A SEALS diver attached a magnetic mine to the Cheonan, as part of a covert program aimed at influencing public opinion in South Korea, Japan and China.

 

That is just silly. Contact explosive damage and bubble jet damage are completely different. But, hey, it's posted on the internet so it must be true...Wink

 

NoDifferencePartyPooper wrote:

 

 

Beijing Suspects False Flag Attack on South Korean Corvette

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=19433

"WMR's intelligence sources in Asia suspect that the March attack on the South Korean Navy anti-submarine warfare corvette, the Cheonan was a false flag attack designed to appear as coming from North Korea..'

Pages

Topic locked