North Korea shells the South, South retaliates

[STALKERGB 6]

Lets hear it for Pailin Failin!!! Shes an idiot, I still don't know why the media keeps giving her attention.

Yeah I have to agree, still I guess its always something to make a joke about.

Although this really does show that Sarah Palin is following the wrong kind of Korea path with comments like this...

(see what I did there?)

[sic-disaster 311]

I think North and South should both watch The Brotherhood of War, and remember what the last war was like and think about if this really is what they want.

That said, any nation should do it.

[Baff1 0]

South admits firing first shells in row with North Korea

According to RT they admit they are a bunch of nubs who screwed up in their military exercise.

Edited November 25, 2010 by Baff1

[celery 8]

South admits firing first shells in row with North Korea

According to RT they admit they are a bunch of nubs who screwed up in their military exercise.

It was known from day one that South Korea had a drill in the region. Some hours later North Korea decided to shell the island. Fortunately we have the unbiased Russia Today (the mere name evokes trust) to tell us that having a naval exercise is a completely acceptable reason to begin lethal exchange with the offending party, at least if said offending party is South Korea.

[STALKERGB 6]

Yeah RT is a pretty twisted source for things sometimes, to be honest even if the South Korean training exercise went wrong in some way it doesn't warrant a shelling of an island as a response.

North Korea uses things like this so that they can be the big boys at the international table, the ability to say "oh well we could just go crazy and attack South Korea" is what they would call a bargaining chip. Whether it holds any true value is another matter entirely. I guess to an extent it also diverts the North Korean populace from seeing any internal problems if all eyes are focussed on the "foreign aggressor".

[Tonci87 163]

Thats the point there. The NK People are Brainwashed to believe that the whole world, and especially the SK wants them all dead. So they don´t care that much about their internal problems as they would without the "foreign agressor".

[celery 8]

A very informative blog post on the matter by someone who has lived in Korea:

http://askakorean.blogspot.com/2010/11/north-koreas-shelling-of-yeonpyeong-do.html

Edited November 26, 2010 by Celery

[HyperU2 11]

They're making a bigger deal out of this than they did with a loss of a ship and 40 lives. SK didn't even get a shot off that time. Let this latest story blow away.

[Baff1 0]

Yeah RT is a pretty twisted source for things sometimes, to be honest even if the South Korean training exercise went wrong in some way it doesn't warrant a shelling of an island as a response.

North Korea uses things like this so that they can be the big boys at the international table, the ability to say "oh well we could just go crazy and attack South Korea" is what they would call a bargaining chip. Whether it holds any true value is another matter entirely. I guess to an extent it also diverts the North Korean populace from seeing any internal problems if all eyes are focussed on the "foreign aggressor".

Actually I think it's very important to get alternative sources.

RT is a great source. It isn't automatically tied into the whole "west is best" philosophy, it gives another angle on events we would otherwise not have.

While I agree in your assessment of the North Koreans, I don't think this is in any way a simple case of one sided prevarication. Good guys vs bad guys.

SK and America make every attempt to provoke NK. The entire country is paranoid with good reason.

You should bear in mind that the training exercises that SK and America are so fond of are typically training execises for a seaborne invasion of NK, a country they are still at war with.

How can NK tell if the invasion fleet staging off their coast is a real one or practise one?

They can't. They have to assume the worst and go to a state of high readineess each time it occours.

Now imagine if during one of those execises a fire mission was called down on an enemy position by accident...

What should NK do?

An enemy invasion fleet from a country they are at war with is off their coast and firing on them....

Every story like this has two sides of the coin.

You can automatically take SK's side as a sympathetic ally, but you should be aware that what their government said happened, like with all governments, is not necessarily the truth. It is equally as likely that the direct opposite is.

Edited November 26, 2010 by Baff1

[celery 8]

Actually I think it's very important to get alternative sources.

RT is a great source. It isn't automatically tied into the whole "west is best" philosophy, it gives another angle on events we would otherwise not have.

A news network that blatantly tells anti-western "news" regardless of or by twisting known facts can hardly be considered an alternative angle. It's just rubbish and makes you none the wiser unless your only goal is to know the opinion of an extremely biased network whose agenda is clear as daylight.

[Baff1 0]

It's no more bias than the America or British news networks I watch. It just has a different bias.

Loads of people think Al Jezeera is a terrorist organisation! ROFL.

I think it's important to see these topics covered from a wide variety of biased viewpoints rather than from a more limited, if more comfortable, few.

Yes RT does have an agenda, but the important thing for our objectivity is that it is a different agenda from the BBC or CNN. It shows us that there are other ways of looking at world events and issues rather than allowing us to retreat into our comfort zones of just automatically going with whatever viewpoint the BBC is espousing, (or whatever news channel you personally trust and prefer).

Edited November 26, 2010 by Baff1

[STALKERGB 6]

They're making a bigger deal out of this than they did with a loss of a ship and 40 lives. SK didn't even get a shot off that time. Let this latest story blow away.

I guess that these hit land has something to do with the size of the story, possibly the fact civilians were injured/involved adds to it.

Actually I think it's very important to get alternative sources.

RT is a great source.

I understand the importance of alternative sources and I do watch RT because I find a lot of the theories on it to be interesting (true or otherwise). Just looking at the title of the video is misleading, it makes it sound as though SK directly engaged NK first when the opposite appears to be true. Now in the actual report it is explained that what they meant by "fired first" is that SK was conducting a training exercise when NK may well have mistaken it for reality but you've still been mis-informed until this point.

It isn't automatically tied into the whole "west is best" philosophy, it gives another angle on events we would otherwise not have.

When you are largely funded by the Russian government I'm sure you would lean that way. :)

Like I said I don't have anything against Alternative news broadcasters, its just I always think they need to be taken with a pinch of salt and verified (although thats the same with any news broadcaster). And yes, it doesn't surprise me that NK reacted like this, they are bound to be paranoid so yeah, I agree on that.

[celery 8]

It's no more bias than the America or British news networks I watch. It just has a different bias.

Loads of people think Al Jezeera is a terrorist organisation! ROFL.

I think it's important to see these topics covered from a wide variety of biased viewpoints rather than from a more limited, if more comfortable, few.

Yes RT does have an agenda, but the important thing for our objectivity is that it is a different agenda from the BBC or CNN. It shows us that there are other ways of looking at world events and issues rather than allowing us to retreat into our comfort zones of just automatically going with whatever viewpoint the BBC is espousing, (or whatever news channel you personally trust and prefer).

BBC, CNN and Fox don't comprise all of western media, they're just 3 US or UK networks, all of which have been subject to controversy because of their bias. Western media as a whole has more freedom and objectivity than those of any other region. They can publish any kind of news they want, unlike in other parts of the world, and non-US/UK networks rarely have pro-US/UK agendas, but rather some slight bias toward reporting about their own countries' issues.

An objective viewpoint can't be achieved by accepting lies as just another eligible side of the story. If you want to know more about the situation in Korea from a knowledgeable source, I suggest you read the blog entry I linked earlier.

[Baff1 0]

BBC, CNN and Fox don't comprise all of western media, they're just 3 US or UK networks, all of which have been subject to controversy because of their bias. Western media as a whole has more freedom and objectivity than those of any other region. They can publish any kind of news they want, unlike in other parts of the world, and non-US/UK networks rarely have pro-US/UK agendas, but rather some slight bias toward reporting about their own countries' issues.

An objective viewpoint can't be achieved by accepting lies as just another eligible side of the story. If you want to know more about the situation in Korea from a knowledgeable source, I suggest you read the blog entry I linked earlier.

Western media is like every other media.

It is owned by someone.

If you work for Murdoch you are not free to say what you like and run any story you like. You will work within the broad political agenda set by your editors.

If you work for the BBC the same. CNN, Al Jazeera, RT... whoever.

You get to cover the stories that the editorial staff want covered.

If you cover them in a way that is sympathetic with the views of the other people you work with, you get asked to do more, if you don't you will get sidelined.

Putin, Thatcher, Murdoch, Bush.. someone opinionated or with a vested intrest is still setting your news agenda and a government is still regulating your choice of stories to print.

All news agencies have bias.

The more obvious that bias the more useful their reportage is. The more diverse the range of their bias, the easier it is to spot any bias reporting amongst them.

Western reporting is naturally bias in favour of the south. Chinese and Russian the north.

To dismiss those reports that do not match your own natural bias as lies, is just retreating into your own comfort zone.

Anytime you are viewing these as simplistic issues with clear good guys and clear bad guys, you are doing objectivity a dis-service.

With regards to reading a blogger, I have to say I would be most intrested in reading a North Korean blogger (if I was the blogger type).

In all honesty I don't feel reading another South Korean view is going to add that much to my picture at this point.

That faction's agenda gets 90% of the media coverage as it is.

It's the bits I don't know about that I want to learn, rather than further validations of what is already common knowledge if you see what I mean.

Thanks for the link. Maybe I will look at it a bit later. Bloggs aren't really my thing however. I'm resistent to them.

---------- Post added at 03:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:43 PM ----------

Like I said I don't have anything against Alternative news broadcasters, its just I always think they need to be taken with a pinch of salt and verified (although thats the same with any news broadcaster). And yes, it doesn't surprise me that NK reacted like this, they are bound to be paranoid so yeah, I agree on that.

I don't think it's possible to verify them at this point. I don't think it will be possible to verify them at any time in the future either.

Not the South's claims nor the North's.

What I do think is that most (if not all) of the conversation in this thread so far has simply automatically gone with the Souths claims without recognising this clear uncertainty due to either natural bias or closed mindedness.

I think that RT report raises valuable awareness that this is not a claim that can reasonably be taken for granted just because of where our natural sympathies may lay.

Edited November 26, 2010 by Baff1

[Dwarden 1124]

i wonder why would someone side here with North Korea at all

that regime turned own country into massive prison camp with many work camps with life sentense

this regime is also responsible for hunger and 100k to millions deaths in past decades

crimes like executions w/o trials and punishment for whole families ...

such crimes are outstanding even compared to genocides done in some dictatorships in Africa

it's general failure of OSN as whole and state of world to unable to get rid of such evil

in fact OSN had it's chance and still failed to turn it into victory

[celery 8]

Western reporting is naturally bias in favour of the south. Chinese and Russian the north.

You could just as well say that truth itself is biased against North Korea. The facts are that South Korea had an exercise in a maritime region that North Korea alone insists belongs to them (but only since 1973 or 1999), resulting in North Korea shelling the island hours after the drill started, meaning that South couldn't have made even an accidental attack on the actual North side because the response would have been more imminent.

The bias of RT is that they want you to believe that the South Korean ships/artillery firing hours earlier in an exercise changes everything in North Korea's favor. There is no higher objectivity to be had by listening to RT because they didn't bring any new facts onto the table, only the misinterpretation of a universally verified event. So where is the western bias regarding this episode?

To dismiss those reports that do not match your own natural bias as lies, is just retreating into your own comfort zone.

When a news network known to be heavily biased blatantly tries to convey that an exercise is acceptable grounds for armed retribution leading to loss of life, yes, I tend to discard it. Whether it's common sense or just retreating to my comfort zone, I leave for you to decide.

[Baff1 0]

Why would any body here take any side in wars that did not involve them or anyone they love?

Do you love war that much?

I don't see any reason for anyone here to be taking any "sides" over this incident at all.

That's why I find myself contributing points of balance into the discussion.

I'm sorry but I am not one to demonise people.

Ok you hate NK. I don't. I don't hate anyone.

Genocides have been commited agianst the North Koreans as well as by them. the same is true of the South Koreans.

Yes, they had a famine, for a combination of reasons including bad governance, weather, and trade sanctions imposed on them.

Yes they execute their criminals, but many countries do. (Not mine yay!).

I'm not god. I won't judge these people for their crimes.

Especially crimes that have not been commited against me. That I have not witnessed.

I will however applaud them for the things they have got right.

On their amazing strength and spirit to hold out against the worlds greatest superpower for the last 60 years as they have.

To overcome that famine as they did.

Their achievements in spite of these drawbacks only makes me respect them more.

Despite the famine, the war, the sanctions, the poverty....

Here is a country with a space race, a nuclear program, an army that can hold back America for decades...

With a government that is loved by it's people in way mine is not.

Mass games in NK is something I even consider to be one of the wonders of the world.

50,000 synchronised gymnasts! It's beauty is simply astounding.

And yet all the average person in the world wishes to do is kill them.

For the record, I don't side with North Korea. I'm English. We fight for the South.

All my Korean friends are South Korean friends.

But then I don't demonise people either. Not North Koreans, not even Jews.

[Dwarden 1124]

baff11 i seriously hope You don't believe what You just wrote ...

seems like you are amazed by goals reached by tyrany / murder / crimes on normal civil population

sometimes i wish people like You get reality check by living 4 years in such country

[ProfTournesol 956]

But then I don't demonise people either. Not North Koreans, not even Jews.

With such point of view, my country would still be a German-Nazi occupated region.

[Baff1 0]

You could just as well say that truth itself is biased against North Korea. The facts are that South Korea had an exercise in a maritime region that North Korea alone insists belongs to them (but only since 1973), resulting in North Korea shelling the island hours after the drill started, meaning that South couldn't have made even an accidental attack on the actual North side because the response would have been more imminent.

The bias of RT is that they want you to believe that the South Korean ships/artillery firing hours earlier in an exercise changes everything in North Korea's favor. There is no higher objectivity to be had by listening to RT because they didn't bring any new facts onto the table, only the misinterpretation of a universally verified event. So where is the western bias regarding this episode?

When a news network known to be heavily biased blatantly tries to convey that an exercise is acceptable grounds for armed retribution leading to loss of life, yes, I tend to discard it. Whether it's common sense or just retreating to my comfort zone, I leave for you to decide.

All news networks are known to be heavily biased by some one.

You discard the ones that do not suit reflect your own bias. That's all.

Holding military execises in the disputed area's of a warzone, is asking for trouble. It's prevarication and provocation.

So if while you are practising your warskill in no mans land, you get shot by your enemy...don't come complaining to me.

I agree with you that the RT story added no new facts.

I think it did something different. I think it added a new perspective.

Now a lot of people aren't going to be open to that perspective, I admit.

But I am.

I don't belive in comic strips of good guys vs bad guys.

I think it is a complex scenario, rather than a simple one.

---------- Post added at 05:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:04 PM ----------

With such point of view, my country will still be a German-Nazi occupated region.

With such a point of view your country was liberated from the Nazi's by my family.

[ProfTournesol 956]

With such a point of view your country was liberated from the Nazi's by my family.

Obviously not, as you're reacting more like Chamberlain than Churchill, my bad ;)

[Baff1 0]

baff11 i seriously hope You don't believe what You just wrote ...

seems like you are amazed by goals reached by tyrany / murder / crimes on normal civil population

sometimes i wish people like You get reality check by living 4 years in such country

I don't believe those goals were reached by tyranny and murder.

I belive they were reached by communal spirit and human endeavour.

A great unity of spirit and national hope.

The basic desire of all mankind to better themselves.

I believe that they were achieved, not becuase of tyranny, murder and crimes against normal civil population, but in spite of them.

I think it is a great shame that you are unable to see any deeper into the lives of these people than the negatives or that you believe their lives are all ruled by such things. They are a very proud people and they have great reason to be.

---------- Post added at 05:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:08 PM ----------

Obviously not, as you're reacting more like Chamberlain than Churchill, my bad ;)

Do what?

I'm pretty sure you'll find all the German Nazi's have gone from your country now.

I wish no harm to the people of North Korea nor South. I won't talk smack about the North to justify the South killing them anymore than you will talk smack about the South to justify the North killing them.

If they attack me, or they attack you, or they even just look like they are going to... my gun is loaded.

Or if they cut my trade routes or any of a great long list of other selfish reasons.. I'm not shy of killing.

But I like to know the truth about these sorts of things. I like my judgement to take in factors that go beyond my pre-concpetions or the pre-conceptions of others.

South Korea said North Korea started it. North Korea said South Korea Started it.

Both sides prevaricate with each other on an almost daily basis.

Both sides have form, but I don't have any evidence to decide for myself either way.

I'm not taking either of their words for it.

I don't think this is a question of taking sides, I don't think this is a question of being willing to go to war or not.

I just think it's a question of historic objectivity.

If I was to decide to go to war, it wouldn't be a decision made on the basis of "who started it". That's a little too playground for me.

Edited November 26, 2010 by Baff1

[celery 8]

You discard the ones that do not suit reflect your own bias. That's all.

If I told you that North Korea sank the island with SCUDs because they're evil bastards and you didn't believe me, you'd be close-mindedly discarding my alternate angle because my truth didn't reflect your own bias. Comfort zone, perspective etc.

Holding military execises in the disputed area's of a warzone, is asking for trouble. It's prevarication and provocation.

So if while you are practising your warskill in no mans land, you get shot by your enemy...don't come complaining to me.

It's not no man's land, it's a maritime border recognized by everyone except for North Korea, wanting to claim some good fishing waters as an afterthought.

Upon further reading of your posts I am lead to believe that you simply want to believe all the best about North Korea, biasedly dismissing western "propaganda" aimed to smear NK's name. It seems that the one who is biased is you.

[ProfTournesol 956]

I don't think this is a question of taking sides, I don't think this is a question of being willing to go to war or not.

I just think it's a question of historic objectivity.

Errr...i think it's a question of what you do smoke :D

[Big Mac 19]

an army that can hold back America for decades...

Riiight because numbers totally count in their favor when we have A-10s and F-16s on stand by in Osan most likely loaded with CBUs.. A second korean war (any one who says it hasn't ended shut up. I'm hung over and I don't feel like being PC.) would not last for 3 years it would at most last 6 months because of one simple thing technology; we have it and they don't.

I don't believe those goals were reached by tyranny and murder.

I belive they were reached by communal spirit and human endeavour.

A great unity of spirit and national hope.

The basic desire of all mankind to better themselves.

Mankind can better itself by taking out the trash.. i.e. NKs, Chinese, AQ, Neo-cons, scary russians, and peace freaks.

I would rip apart your entire post but reading your make love, not war post is making my hangover worse...

Edited November 26, 2010 by Big Mac