War time/NK's "sacred war" threat...merge

[Hermit]

It's an article reported in the Daily Mail, and I clearly and unambiguously stated two things that made it abundantly clear that this was a rumor and that there is no hard evidence.

Then why post that shit in the first place?

Because we hate ethnic minorities too?

76 million Koreans are an ethnic minority of what?

[Coito ergo sum]

Why not?

It's relevant to discussions on North Korea.

"relevant", I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Here, there was a report in the Daily Mail - I didn't fucking invent it. It was posted in the news, and FIFA folks have commented on it. I posted it in relation to a thread on North Korea - AND - I didn't just throw it out there - I made it abundantly clear that, having read the article itself, I did not see that evidence had been produced to show that it was for sure true, and that it appears to, as far as I can tell, based on reports received by people claiming to have firsthand knowledge.

Here are some more sources for you:

New Zealand Herald: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/ar ... d=10665481

Taipei Times: http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/sport/a ... 2003480193

Bloomberg: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-1 ... -says.html

FIFA President Sepp Blatter said soccer’s governing body is investigating reports North Korea’s World Cup squad was publicly humiliated and head coach Kim Jong Hun sentenced to hard labor, Agence France-Presse reported.

FIFA this week sent a letter to North Korea’s soccer association requesting details about its election of a new president and “to find out if allegations made by the media that the coach and some players were condemned and punished are true,” AFP cited Blatter as saying today in Singapore.

“We are doing this as a first step and we will see how they answer,” the news agency cited Blatter as saying.

North Korea lost all three group games in South Africa, its first appearance at the World Cup since 1966.

TMZ http://www.tmz.com/2010/07/30/north-kor ... -jong-hun/ (indicating they got the news from "several" sources)

The Los Angeles Times: World Cup officials with FIFA say they've received tips that players and coaches were punished after the team's poor performance in South Africa. - so, apparently, officials with the world cup have received information from people who purportedly know the facts. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld ... 9120.story

Sepp Blatter confirmed that he received the reports:

Sepp Blatter, president of the International Federation of Association Football, or Fifa, said this week that the organization had received tips that players and coaches "have been condemned or punished" after an embarrassing appearance in which they conceded the most goals of all 32 teams in the tournament.

Radio Free Asia reported that the team -- except for Japan-born Jong Tae-se and Ahn Young-hak -- was summoned to Pyongyang for "harsh ideological criticism." The report added that the players were ordered to reprimand Coach Kim, who was then sentenced to hard labor for the team's failings.

The players also faced a public scolding by more than 400 students and sports fans, according to reports.

North Korea's state-run news service has been silent about the allegations, which the radio station said were made by unidentified sources in North Korea and a Chinese businessman described as knowledgeable about North Korea affairs.

Soccer officials also considered claims made by Chung Mong-Joon, the former Hyundai chairman and president of the South Korean Football Association. Reached in Seoul on Thursday, South Korean soccer officials said they have no information about their counterparts in the north.

The media in South Korea said the players got off lightly by North Korean standards.”In the past, North Korean athletes and coaches who performed badly were sent to prison camps,” a South Korean intelligence source told the Chosun Ilbo.

http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/20 ... world-cup/

Reported in Wikinews: http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Football:_C ... hard_labor

Reported in Budapest Report: http://www.budapestreport.com/2010/08/0 ... cup-coach/

A google search reveals dozens of other treatments of this story.

[Coito ergo sum]

It's an article reported in the Daily Mail, and I clearly and unambiguously stated two things that made it abundantly clear that this was a rumor and that there is no hard evidence.

Then why post that shit in the first place?

Because we hate ethnic minorities too?

?

Because the DPRK is a piece of shit totalitarian dictatorship of the Stalinist kind that routinely enslaves people, imprisons people at hard labor for minor offenses, and oppresses its people. It is certainly not out of character for Kim Jong Il to do what is alleged, after all, they imprison people at hard labor for extended sentences for crossing their border illegally. It's a country that was shown to have a State policy of international kidnapping and enslavement of non-North Koreans: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/2821221.stm --- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Kore ... f_Japanese and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Kore ... th_Koreans

So, oh, yeah - it's because of hatred of ethnic minorities.

[Coito ergo sum]

N.Korea likely can miniaturize nuclear device: Seoul

By Jack Kim | Reuters – 5 hours ago
SEOUL (Reuters) - North Korea has probably succeeded in miniaturizing a nuclear device, South Korea's defense minister said on Monday, an advance that would in theory allow the hermit state to place an atomic warhead on a rocket.
Regional powers have for years tried -- with a mix of aid offers and punitive sanctions -- in vain to stop Pyongyang pressing ahead with a nuclear weapons program it argues is a necessary defense against a hostile United States and South Korea with which it still has no peace treaty to formally end the 1950-53 Korean War.
Kim Kwan-jin offered no evidence to back his assertion but said the North had had enough time for such a development.
"It has been quite a while, enough time for them to have succeeded in miniaturization," he told a parliamentary defense committee.
If true, it would mark a key advance in the North's drive to develop a functioning nuclear weapon though that threat appears to be potential rather than actual.
It detonated nuclear devices in 2006 and 2009 but neither was considered by weapons experts to have been successful, though they say the impoverished state has enough fissile material for up to 10 nuclear weapons.
It is believed to be preparing a third test at a test site on its east coast.
The North has also been working, so far with little success,
to build a missile capable of delivering a nuclear weapon across the Pacific, as far as the United States.
Talks with major powers on its nuclear weapons program have been on ice for more than two years though the North has signaled it wants them to resume.
However, both the United States and key allies South Korea and Japan have been reluctant to head back into negotiations which in the past have rewarded the North for little if anything in return.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/n-korea-likely ... 09294.html

[FBM]

It's an article reported in the Daily Mail, and I clearly and unambiguously stated two things that made it abundantly clear that this was a rumor and that there is no hard evidence.

Then why post that shit in the first place?

Because we hate ethnic minorities too?

?

Because the DPRK is a piece of shit totalitarian dictatorship...

Ah. Like Libya?

[Coito ergo sum]

It's an article reported in the Daily Mail, and I clearly and unambiguously stated two things that made it abundantly clear that this was a rumor and that there is no hard evidence.

Then why post that shit in the first place?

Because we hate ethnic minorities too?

?

Because the DPRK is a piece of shit totalitarian dictatorship...

Ah. Like Libya?

Yes, and like Iraq was, too, right?

[FBM]

Word. You seem to be a fan of places like that, seeing as how you demonize intervention into bloody totalitarian behavior. Ever thought of joining up with one of them? If you like the "might makes right" philosophy so much, it would seem a paradise to you, eh? Rwanda must have been a wet dream to you.

[Coito ergo sum]

Word. You seem to be a fan of places like that, seeing as how you demonize intervention into bloody totalitarian behavior. Ever thought of joining up with one of them? If you like the "might makes right" philosophy so much, it would seem a paradise to you, eh?

So, I guess those that opposed the war in Iraq are fans of places like that, seeing as how they demonized intervention into bloody totalitarian behavior....

[FBM]

Word. You seem to be a fan of places like that, seeing as how you demonize intervention into bloody totalitarian behavior. Ever thought of joining up with one of them? If you like the "might makes right" philosophy so much, it would seem a paradise to you, eh?

So, I guess those that opposed the war in Iraq are fans of places like that, seeing as how they demonized intervention into bloody totalitarian behavior....

That's sure what it's looking like based on your presentation.

[Coito ergo sum]

Word. You seem to be a fan of places like that, seeing as how you demonize intervention into bloody totalitarian behavior. Ever thought of joining up with one of them? If you like the "might makes right" philosophy so much, it would seem a paradise to you, eh?

So, I guess those that opposed the war in Iraq are fans of places like that, seeing as how they demonized intervention into bloody totalitarian behavior....

That's sure what it's looking like based on your presentation.

If you say so. Anyone who opposes a war against a totalitarian, in your view, is a fan of totalitarian behavior. Your argument, not mine.

[FBM]

Word. You seem to be a fan of places like that, seeing as how you demonize intervention into bloody totalitarian behavior. Ever thought of joining up with one of them? If you like the "might makes right" philosophy so much, it would seem a paradise to you, eh?

So, I guess those that opposed the war in Iraq are fans of places like that, seeing as how they demonized intervention into bloody totalitarian behavior....

That's sure what it's looking like based on your presentation.

If you say so. Anyone who opposes a war against a totalitarian, in your view, is a fan of totalitarian behavior. Your argument, not mine.

Anyone who opposes intervention in the wholesale slaughter of peaceful dissidents is reasonably suspected of supporting the wholesale slaughter of peaceful dissidents. Yes, that's my argument. Your defense is?

[Coito ergo sum]

Word. You seem to be a fan of places like that, seeing as how you demonize intervention into bloody totalitarian behavior. Ever thought of joining up with one of them? If you like the "might makes right" philosophy so much, it would seem a paradise to you, eh?

So, I guess those that opposed the war in Iraq are fans of places like that, seeing as how they demonized intervention into bloody totalitarian behavior....

That's sure what it's looking like based on your presentation.

If you say so. Anyone who opposes a war against a totalitarian, in your view, is a fan of totalitarian behavior. Your argument, not mine.

Anyone who opposes intervention in the wholesale slaughter of peaceful dissidents is reasonably suspected of supporting the wholesale slaughter of peaceful dissidents. Yes, that's my argument. Your defense is?

Peaceful dissidents were not being slaughtered in Libya. The allegation was made that such conduct might happen, and the western intervention was needed to preempt it.

But, nevertheless, my point was to identify the blatant hypocrisy of someone who is favor of an intervention like Libya, but opposed any intervention in Iraq. There was a greater humanitarian issue in Iraq than in Libya. Yet, because there was "no imminent threat" the intervention was deemed improper. Those same folks, however, have no problem with no imminent threat in Libya, because the humanitarian issue is enough.

Are you missing that? Did you support the intervention in Iraq?

[FBM]

There were humanitarian issues in both places, and it's a subjective judgement as to which was greater. Both of them justified intervention, as long as the motivation was humanitarian. But if the motivation was to acquire control of oil reserves or to divert attention from failed policies in Afghanistan, then the humanitarian angle was just a smokescreen, and ad hoc justification, a hypocrisy. There's no indication that the US has oil interests in mind in Libya, so comparing the two is a false analogy. Google "false analogy" if you need.

[Coito ergo sum]

There were humanitarian issues in both places, and it's a subjective judgement as to which was greater. Both of them justified intervention, as long as the motivation was humanitarian. But if the motivation was to acquire control of oil reserves or to divert attention from failed policies in Afghanistan, then the humanitarian angle was just a smokescreen, and ad hoc justification, a hypocrisy. There's no indication that the US has oil interests in mind in Libya, so comparing the two is a false analogy. Google "false analogy" if you need.

The US and Europe both have oil interests in Libya.

And, in 2003, there were no "failed" policies in Afghanistan. WTF?

And, either the humanitarian issue existed, or it didn't. The fact that other issues may also have been present which in someone's opinion would not in and of themselves justify the war, the humanitarian issues still remained and were among the reasons offered.

[FBM]

The US and Europe both have oil interests in Libya.

As does the rest of the world. Your point?

And, in 2003, there were no "failed" policies in Afghanistan. WTF?

Relevance? Obscure references are obscure. That doesn't help the discussion. If you have a point, please state it explicitly.

And, either the humanitarian issue existed, or it didn't. The fact that other issues may also have been present which in someone's opinion would not in and of themselves justify the war, the humanitarian issues still remained and were among the reasons offered.

Yes, the humaniarian issues existed and were given as a justification for the invasion of Iraq. We agree on that. Your point is?