|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
murmanjake
Joined: 21 Oct 2008
|
 Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 12:52 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Frenetic wrote: |
LOOK I will tell ALL of you for the LAST time...
A border is the line between two nations...the dividing line, mkay?
A boarder is a guy that sleeps in your spare bedroom for a small pittance.
Got it? Good.
Carry on!
 |
Also be sure to note that even though they are crossing a line, those merry pirates, led by their red-bearded captain on their latest ship, are boarders. And all hands should be prepared to repel them, complete with magic potion. |
Not to mention that those pirates' enslaved shipwrights, confined to the lower levels, repairing each leak with solid planks of rough-hewn timber, are boarders. And though they hope desperately for the pirates' overthrow, they cannot rebel, for if they were to neglect their burden, for for even one minute, they would surely sink to a watery grave. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Died By Bear
Joined: 13 Jul 2010
Location: On the big lake they call Gitche Gumee
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 12:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
Suppose you don't get out in time with the rest of the evacuees and you're left behind. After surviving multiple artillery and gas/bio attacks, your trek to the new rally point south of Daejon comes to a bitter end, when you are apprehended by an overwhelming number of NORK paratroopers. You are taken prisoner and immediately sent to a NORK Pow holding area just north of Pyongyang.
You are among the first group of westerners to arrive, and you are being accused of being a spy because you're not wearing a uniform. They want to know why you're still in Korea if you're not a spy.
What will you say to your captors? These guys are ready to shoot you right now. The head dude speaks some English, but can't string together a sentence. He can speak some Russian though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
diver
Joined: 16 Jun 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Frenetic wrote: |
Suppose you don't get out in time with the rest of the evacuees and you're left behind. After surviving multiple artillery and gas/bio attacks, your trek to the new rally point south of Daejon comes to a bitter end, when you are apprehended by an overwhelming number of NORK paratroopers. You are taken prisoner and immediately sent to a NORK Pow holding area just north of Pyongyang.
You are among the first group of westerners to arrive, and you are being accused of being a spy because you're not wearing a uniform. They want to know why you're still in Korea if you're not a spy.
What will you say to your captors? These guys are ready to shoot you right now. The head dude speaks some English, but can't string together a sentence. He can speak some Russian though. |
How are North Korean paratroopers going to get to Daejeon? UN forces will have air supremacy in about the first 6 hours (if not 15 minutes) of a war.
I don't know how a ground war will go, but the truth is that you are insane if you want to take on the USAF. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Died By Bear
Joined: 13 Jul 2010
Location: On the big lake they call Gitche Gumee
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
Sigh just suppose damn you!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
diver
Joined: 16 Jun 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Frenetic wrote: |
| Sigh just suppose damn you! |
Well, then...I suppose I would tell the head dude some things he could do with a maternal relative in Russian.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| diver wrote: |
| Look, enough with the straw man. You concluded that it was a targeted attack on civilians. I say the evidence is not yet there to support the conclusion. You still haven't proven your original point.. |
http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/national/2010/11/24/56/0301000000AEN20101124011200315F.HTML
| Quote: |
| Two civilians were found dead Wednesday on a front-line South Korean island devastated by a North Korean artillery attack, the first civilian deaths recorded from the bombing, the coast guard said. |
Does the fact that an equal number of civilians have now been found to have died change your stance that this had nothing to do with civilians?
And again, I ask - if this was purely a military target, why didn't they choose ONLY military targets? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sojusucks
Joined: 31 May 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 2:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| One part of this that would shock people all around the world is how lightly the Korean public takes these kinds of attacks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
diver
Joined: 16 Jun 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 2:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Captain Corea wrote: |
| diver wrote: |
| Look, enough with the straw man. You concluded that it was a targeted attack on civilians. I say the evidence is not yet there to support the conclusion. You still haven't proven your original point.. |
http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/national/2010/11/24/56/0301000000AEN20101124011200315F.HTML
| Quote: |
| Two civilians were found dead Wednesday on a front-line South Korean island devastated by a North Korean artillery attack, the first civilian deaths recorded from the bombing, the coast guard said. |
Does the fact that an equal number of civilians have now been found to have died change your stance that this had nothing to do with civilians?
And again, I ask - if this was purely a military target, why didn't they choose ONLY military targets? |
Learn to read. You know, I rarely agree with you, but I always had respect for you. That's why I find this argument so vexing. I've never seen you resort to just making stuff up before. Where did I say that this had NOTHING to do with civilians.
You said "We should keep in mind that this was the first time they've targeted civilians with artillery since the war."
This is YOUR claim. Prove it. I haven't made any claims, so I have nothing to prove. I am simply disagreeing with your opinion and telling you why I do.
The count is now 17 military dead/wounded and 5 civilians dead/wounded. Military members suffered three times more casualties than civilians. Those numbers say to me that a military base was targeted and civilians got hit as collateral damage (I didn't invent the term, and I don't like it either, but it is what it is). They do not say that civilians were targeted. If they wanted to target civilians, they could possibly have done a lot more damage.
If the numbers change, I will re-evaluate my opinion. I disagree with your argument because, in my opinion, the facts are not there to support it. That has not yet changed.statement, but it is not the first time North Korea has targeted civilians.
BTW, Capt:
As an aside...What you think, or I think doesn't really matter. But, just in case you care, I'll tell you why this bothers me so much.
We all know there will be a different reaction to soldiers being killed (terrible, but it's their duty and they knew the risks etc) vs. completely innocent civilians being deliberately targeted by North Korea.
Remember weapons of mass destruction?
Remember Kuwaiti babies being taken from incubators and thrown on the floor?
So, if you and I argue about it...big deal. Two guys who have never really gotten along on a message board aren't going to affect policy. But when CNN does it, and other news outlets do it, and heads of state do it...bad things can happen. THAT'S what bothers me about exaggerating a situation that I believe is serious enough not to need any exaggeration.
Last edited by diver on Wed Nov 24, 2010 2:18 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Heli Mike
Joined: 26 May 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 2:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sojusucks wrote: |
| One part of this that would shock people all around the world is how lightly the Korean public takes these kinds of attacks. |
That's a good point. I was talking to my students about the events and they told me yesterday they were concerned. Today, no worries, just another day, and they expect another attack at some point in the near future. And what will SK do if there is another attack? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 2:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| diver wrote: |
| Captain Corea wrote: |
| diver wrote: |
| Look, enough with the straw man. You concluded that it was a targeted attack on civilians. I say the evidence is not yet there to support the conclusion. You still haven't proven your original point.. |
http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/national/2010/11/24/56/0301000000AEN20101124011200315F.HTML
| Quote: |
| Two civilians were found dead Wednesday on a front-line South Korean island devastated by a North Korean artillery attack, the first civilian deaths recorded from the bombing, the coast guard said. |
Does the fact that an equal number of civilians have now been found to have died change your stance that this had nothing to do with civilians?
And again, I ask - if this was purely a military target, why didn't they choose ONLY military targets? |
Learn to read. You know, I rarely agree with you, but I always had respect for you. That's why I find this argument so vexing. I've never seen you resort to just making stuff up before. Where did I say that this had NOTHING to do with civilians.
You said "We should keep in mind that this was the first time they've targeted civilians with artillery since the war."
This is YOUR claim. Prove it. I haven't made any claims, so I have nothing to prove. I am simply disagreeing with your opinion and telling you why I do.
The count is now 17 military dead/wounded and 5 civilians dead/wounded. Military members suffered three times more casualties than civilians. Those numbers say to me that a military base was targeted and civilians got hit as collateral damage (I didn't invent the term, and I don't like it either, but it is what it is). They do not say that civilians were targeted. If they wanted to target civilians, they could possibly have done a lot more damage.
If the numbers change, I will re-evaluate my opinion. I disagree with your argument because, in my opinion, the facts are not there to support it. That has not yet changed.statement, but it is not the first time North Korea has targeted civilians. |
I find it odd that you see it as simply a numbers game. I have shown that in the past in that area, they have targeted military units. Heck, most of us can easily remember such clashes. But in this case, they had similar options but chose another.
They could have attacked:
A: A purely military one (like that had in previous naval clashes)
B: A purely civilian one (such as an airliner or major city)
C: A mixed one (one with both military and civilian)
They chose C. And as a result, we see the both military and civilian casualties.
You seem very occupied as to what CNN says on this matter. I'm not sure why, you've mentioned family and such, but I have to tell you, CNN hasn't influenced me on this at all. My news sources are varied, and CNN typically does not make my list.
I mentioned civilian targets because of what I saw on the evening news - civilian homes damaged and them being evacuated.
I say that you are callous because of comments like this -
| diver wrote: |
| I would agree with you that being forced to leave their homes is a crisis for the people involved. I am not sure if it constitutes a military or political crisis. |
Does that mean that as long as it doesn't affect you, there is no crisis? Or that so long as it's not your neighborhood, that it's not really a crisis? I see this as pretty cold. I have empathy for these people and feel that it could very well have been my neighborhood (or yours). I see it as a 'crisis' if their homes are attacked, because it could also be my home.
| Quote: |
BTW, Capt:
As an aside...What you think, or I think doesn't really matter. But, just in case you care, I'll tell you why this bothers me so much.
We all know there will be a different reaction to soldiers being killed (terrible, but it's their duty and they knew the risks etc) vs. completely innocent civilians being deliberately targeted by North Korea. |
Yeah, I think this plays into it largely and why I posted what I did in the first place. To many in the korean public, this event is sitting a little bit differently with them... and I feel the same way.
| Quote: |
Remember weapons of mass destruction?
Remember Kuwaiti babies being taken from incubators and thrown on the floor? |
I have noooooooooooo idea why you're putting this in here.
| Quote: |
| So, if you and I argue about it...big deal. Two guys who have never really gotten along on a message board aren't going to affect policy. But when CNN does it, and other news outlets do it, and heads of state do it...bad things can happen. THAT'S what bothers me about exaggerating a situation that I believe is serious enough not to need any exaggeration. |
I haven't read any headlines that I would call 'exaggerating'. Please post them if you have them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
diver
Joined: 16 Jun 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 2:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
You still don't get it...just because you hit something, doesn't mean that was your target. If you wanted to claim that North Korea DIDN'T CARE if they hit civilians, I would accept that. But you didn't. You said that they TARGETED civilians. If they targeted civilians, why is the casualty rate so low compared to that of the military?
Why did they choose that target? How the hell would I know that?
I said that this was a crisis for the people on the island. That demonstrates my callousness how?
Incubators? Why is it there? It is there because it is an example of the press reporting something that got people riled up for war...and that wasn't true (if you don't get the reference, it was in 1990 prior to Desert Storm).
Why CNN? Not only CNN, but I used them because they are supposed to be reputable. Yonhap, by the way, has also reported incorrect info (first artillery attack on South Korea since the war). I was HERE in 1997 when a 45-minute long artillery duel opened up along the DMZ between North and South Korea.
Look, you are obviously never going to agree (probably because of who is saying it, and not what I am saying).
You can try to shift the conversation all you want - I ask you, once again, to prove your initial statement - that North Korea deliberately targeted civilians (remember, simply hitting them doesn't prove they were the target). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Privateer
Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Location: Easy Street.
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 3:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
I saw a headline in the Korean press today calling it a 'precision bombardment'. Clearly, they want to emphasize that the North was not targeting civilians - and I think they're probably right, because they could kill a heck of a lot more civilians with a few well-placed strikes if they felt so inclined.
I also note LMB says 'future' attacks must be met with an aggressive response, i.e. not *this* attack. South Korea just has way too much to lose at this point - and North Korea, of course, very little. You have to wonder how long SK can sit back and just take it, if these attacks continue. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Provence
Joined: 18 Oct 2008
Location: South Korea
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 3:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
I love how the media here is down playing this event, while if a foreigner does something stupid its top news for weeks.
just saying.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 3:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| diver wrote: |
| You still don't get it...just because you hit something, doesn't mean that was your target. If you wanted to claim that North Korea DIDN'T CARE if they hit civilians, I would accept that. But you didn't. You said that they TARGETED civilians. If they targeted civilians, why is the casualty rate so low compared to that of the military? |
Did I ever say that they targeted civilians exclusively? No, simply that they were targeted. If you fire artillery into a town of people - you are targeting them. It really is that simple.
| Quote: |
| Why did they choose that target? How the hell would I know that? |
Then why are you so adamant that they weren't targeting civilians? If you are so against making assumptions, perhaps you should back away from all of yours?
| Quote: |
| I said that this was a crisis for the people on the island. That demonstrates my callousness how? |
Because it excludes the rest of Korea (and yourself?). Ah, that's too bad for them. They were killed. It's bad for the, but for the rest of us... meh. /shrug
A nasty act is a nasty act... and this is indeed a 'crisis' for Korea (as much as any armed conflict with the DPRK has been in the past few decades). So yeah, by saying it's only a crisis for the people that were bombed, you do sound callous.
| Quote: |
| Incubators? Why is it there? It is there because it is an example of the press reporting something that got people riled up for war...and that wasn't true (if you don't get the reference, it was in 1990 prior to Desert Storm). |
Honestly, I cringe at what you are going on about. You're trying to tie this into mushroom clouds and Bush's global war... and as far as I can see, you're the only one doing it. I'm NOT getting that vibe from the k-media, nor from the people around me.
| Quote: |
| Why CNN? Not only CNN, but I used them because they are supposed to be reputable. Yonhap, by the way, has also reported incorrect info (first artillery attack on South Korea since the war). I was HERE in 1997 when a 45-minute long artillery duel opened up along the DMZ between North and South Korea. |
Got the link?
| Quote: |
| Look, you are obviously never going to agree (probably because of who is saying it, and not what I am saying). |
I've never met you and barely remember your user name. Don't flatter yourself. To me, you're the guy in this thread with a swimming shark and an inability to prove my statement wrong. And that's the extent of my thoughts towards you.
| Quote: |
| You can try to shift the conversation all you want - I ask you, once again, to prove your initial statement - that North Korea deliberately targeted civilians (remember, simply hitting them doesn't prove they were the target). |
There is absolutely no way of proving that they targeted civilians. Heck, there's no way of proving that they targeted South Korea - or that island - or the military.
What can be proved is the effect of the barrage - both civilian and military targets hit in a location that had a number of both.
But I'll make this simple for you...
Any time an army bombs a populated area, they are targeting civilians. They may not be the only target, nor even the primary target, but they ARE in that target zone. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
diver
Joined: 16 Jun 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 3:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Did I ever say that they targeted civilians exclusively? No, simply that they were targeted. If you fire artillery into a town of people - you are targeting them. It really is that simple. |
No, it isn't really that simple. Not if a military installation is in that town.
If you want to move the goal posts and say that North Korea targeted South Korea, I would accept that.
| Quote: |
| Then why are you so adamant that they weren't targeting civilians? If you are so against making assumptions, perhaps you should back away from all of yours? |
I didn't say they weren't. I said it hasn't been proven that they did. I also said that if new evidence comes to light, I would re-evaluate my opinion (said it several times). That is hardly adamant.
| Quote: |
Because it excludes the rest of Korea (and yourself?). Ah, that's too bad for them. They were killed. It's bad for the, but for the rest of us... meh. /shrug
A nasty act is a nasty act... and this is indeed a 'crisis' for Korea (as much as any armed conflict with the DPRK has been in the past few decades). So yeah, by saying it's only a crisis for the people that were bombed, you do sound callous. |
You are deliberately taking me out of context. That quote came from a post where I quoted a CNN writer that said this was NOT a crisis. Another poster said that for the people on the island it was indeed a crisis. I agreed with the poster that it was, and that 'crisis" could mean different things to different people.
I never said "Too, bad for them..." show me the quote.
This is not the first time in this thread that you have simply MADE THINGS UP and claimed I said them. Have I got you that rattled?
| Quote: |
| Honestly, I cringe at what you are going on about. You're trying to tie this into mushroom clouds and Bush's global war... and as far as I can see, you're the only one doing it. I'm NOT getting that vibe from the k-media, nor from the people around me. |
No, I am hardly a conspiracy theorist. Show me where I mentioned nuclear war. Tell me where i tried to tie this into bush's global war. What I am saying is that this kind of thing is not without precedent. That's what I don't like.
If you don't see the similarities in CNN reporting years ago about babies being thrown from incubators by Iraqi troops (untrue), and showing a boatload of elderly refugees getting off a boat in Incheon and saying that North Korea deliberately targeted these people (unproven), then I can't help you.
Already provided. You're a big boy and the fact that you are on this thread proves you know how to use a computer. Look for it.
| Quote: |
| What can be proved is the effect of the barrage - both civilian and military targets hit in a location that had a number of both. |
I do agree with this.
All that to finally get here:
| Captain Corea wrote: |
| There is absolutely no way of proving that they targeted civilians. Heck, there's no way of proving that they targeted South Korea - or that island - or the military. |
But there you were anyway...
| Captain Corea wrote: |
| We should keep in mind that this was the first time they've targeted civilians with artillery since the war. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
