The Sinking of the Cheonan: Another Gulf of Tonkin Incident

[Sean Mulligan]

http://gowans.wordpress.com/2010/05/20/ ... -incident/

The sinking of the Cheonan: Another Gulf of Tonkin incident
Posted in north Korea, south Korea by gowans on May 20, 2010
By Stephen Gowans

While the South Korean government announced on May 20 that it has overwhelming evidence that one of its warships was sunk by a torpedo fired by a North Korean submarine, there is, in fact, no direct link between North Korea and the sunken ship. And it seems very unlikely that North Korea had anything to do with it.

That’s not my conclusion. It’s the conclusion of Won See-hoon, director of South Korea’s National Intelligence. Won told a South Korean parliamentary committee in early April, less than two weeks after the South Korean warship, the Cheonan, sank in waters off Baengnyeong Island, that there was no evidence linking North Korea to the Cheonan’s sinking. (1)

South Korea’s Defense Minister Kim Tae-young backed him up, pointing out that the Cheonan’s crew had not detected a torpedo (2), while Lee Ki-sik, head of the marine operations office at the South Korean joint chiefs of staff agreed that “No North Korean warships have been detected…(in) the waters where the accident took place.” (3)

Notice he said “accident.”


Soon after the sinking of the South Korean warship, the Cheonan, Defense Minister Kim Tae-young ruled out a North Korean torpedo attack, noting that a torpedo would have been spotted by radar, and no torpedo had been spotted. Intelligence chief Won See-hoon, said there was no evidence linking North Korea to the Cheonan’s sinking.
Defense Ministry officials added that they had not detected any North Korean submarines in the area at the time of the incident. (4) According to Lee, “We didn’t detect any movement by North Korean submarines near” the area where the Cheonan went down. (5)

When speculation persisted that the Cheonan had been sunk by a North Korean torpedo, the Defense Ministry called another press conference to reiterate “there was no unusual North Korean activities detected at the time of the disaster.” (6)

A ministry spokesman, Won Tae-jae, told reporters that “With regard to this case, no particular activities by North Korean submarines or semi-submarines…have been verified. I am saying again that there were no activities that could be directly linked to” the Cheonan’s sinking. (7)

Rear Admiral Lee, the head of the marine operations office, added that, “We closely watched the movement of the North’s vessels, including submarines and semi-submersibles, at the time of the sinking. But military did not detect any North Korean submarines near the country’s western sea border.” (8)

North Korea has vehemently denied any involvement in the sinking.

So, a North Korean submarine is now said to have fired a torpedo which sank the Cheonan, but in the immediate aftermath of the sinking the South Korean navy detected no North Korean naval vessels, including submarines, in the area. Indeed, immediately following the incident defense minister Lee ruled out a North Korean torpedo attack, noting that a torpedo would have been spotted by radar, and no torpedo had been spotted. (9)

The case gets weaker still.

It’s unlikely that a single torpedo could split a 1,200 ton warship in two. Baek Seung-joo, an analyst with the Korea Institute for Defense Analysis says that “If a single torpedo or floating mine causes a naval patrol vessel to split in half and sink, we will have to rewrite our military doctrine.” (10)

The Cheonan sank in shallow, rapidly running, waters, in which it’s virtually impossible for submarines to operate. “Some people are pointing the finger at North Korea,” notes Song Young-moo, a former South Korean navy chief of staff, “but anyone with knowledge about the waters where the shipwreck occurred would not draw that conclusion so easily.” (11)

Contrary to what looks like an improbable North-Korea-torpedo-hypothesis, the evidence points to the Cheonan splitting in two and sinking because it ran aground upon a reef, a real possibility given the shallow waters in which the warship was operating. According to Go Yeong-jae, the South Korean Coast Guard captain who rescued 56 of the stricken warship’s crew, he “received an order …that a naval patrol vessel had run aground in the waters 1.2 miles to the southwest of Baengnyeong Island, and that we were to move there quickly to rescue them.” (12)

So how is it that what looked like no North Korean involvement in the Cheonan’s sinking, according to the South Korean military in the days immediately following the incident, has now become, one and half months later, an open and shut case of North Korean aggression, according to government-appointed investigators?


South Korean president Lee Myung-bak is a North Korea-phobe who prefers a confrontational stance toward his neighbor to the north to the policy of peaceful coexistence and growing cooperation favored by his recent predecessors. His foreign policy rests on the goal of forcing the collapse of North Korea.
The answer has much to do with the electoral fortunes of South Korea’s ruling Grand National Party, and the party’s need to marshal support for a tougher stance on the North. Lurking in the wings are US arms manufacturers who stand to profit if South Korean president Lee Myung-bak wins public backing for beefed up spending on sonar equipment and warships to deter a North Korean threat – all the more likely with the Cheonan incident chalked up to North Korean aggression.

Lee is a North Korea-phobe who prefers a confrontational stance toward his neighbor to the north to the policy of peaceful coexistence and growing cooperation favored by his recent predecessors (and by Pyongyang, as well. It’s worth mentioning that North Korea supports a policy of peace and cooperation. South Korea, under its hawkish president, does not.) Fabricating a case against the North serves Lee in a number of ways. If voters in the South can be persuaded that the North is indeed a menace – and it looks like this is exactly what is happening – Lee’s hawkish policies will be embraced as the right ones for present circumstances. This will prove immeasurably helpful in upcoming mayoral and gubernatorial elections in June.

What’s more, Lee’s foreign policy rests on the goal of forcing the collapse of North Korea. When he took office in February 2008, he set about reversing a 10-year-old policy of unconditional aid to the North. He has also refused to move ahead on cross-border economic projects. (13) The claim that the sinking of the Cheonan is due to an unprovoked North Korean torpedo attack makes it easier for Lee to drum up support for his confrontational stance.

Finally, the RAND Corporation is urging South Korea to buy sensors to detect North Korean submarines and more warships to intercept North Korean naval vessels. (14) An unequivocal US-lackey – protesters have called the security perimeter around Lee’s office “the U.S. state of South Korea” (15) – Lee would be pleased to hand US corporations fat contracts to furnish the South Korean military with more hardware.

The United States, too, has motivations to fabricate a case against North Korea. One is to justify the continued presence, 65 years after the end of WWII, of US troops on Japanese soil. Many Japanese bristle at what is effectively a permanent occupation of their country by more than a token contingent of US troops. There are 60,000 US soldiers, airmen and sailors in Japan. Washington, and the Japanese government – which, when it isn’t willingly collaborating with its own occupiers, is forced into submission by the considerable leverage Washington exercises — justifies its troop presence through the sheer sophistry of presenting North Korea as an ongoing threat. The claim that North Korea sunk the Cheonan in an unprovoked attack strengthens Washington’s case for occupation. Not surprisingly, US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton has seized on the Cheonan incident to underline “the importance of the America-Japanese alliance, and the presence of American troops on Japanese soil.” (16)

Given these political realities, it comes as no surprise that from the start members of


In 1964, Washington claimed that three North Vietnamese torpedo boats had launched an unprovoked attacked on the USS Maddox, a US Navy destroyer, in the Gulf of Tonkin. The incident was used by US president Lyndon Johnson to win the Congressional support he needed to step up military intervention in Vietnam. No attack had occurred.

Lee’s party blamed the sinking of the Cheonan on a North Korean torpedo (17), just as members of the Bush administration immediately blamed 9/11 on Saddam Hussein, and then proceeded to look for evidence to substantiate their case, in the hopes of justifying an already planned invasion. (Later, the Bush administration fabricated an intelligence dossier on Iraq’s banned weapons.) In fact, the reason the ministry of defense felt the need to reiterate there was no evidence of a North Korean link was the persistent speculation of GNP politicians that North Korea was the culprit. Lee himself, ever hostile to his northern neighbor, said his “intuition” told him that North Korea was to blame. (18) Today, opposition parties accuse Lee of using “red scare” tactics to garner support as the June 2 elections draw near. (19) And leaders of South Korea’s four main opposition parties, as well as a number of civil groups, have issued a joint statement denouncing the government’s findings as untrustworthy.

No wonder. Lee announced, even before the inquiry rendered its findings, that a task force will be launched to overhaul the national security system and bulk up the military to prepare itself for threats from North Korea. (20) He even prepared a package of sanctions against the North in the event the inquiry confirmed what his intuition told him. (21) There was no chance it wouldn’t.

On August 2, 1964, the United States announced that three North Vietnamese torpedo boats had launched an unprovoked attacked on the USS Maddox, a US Navy destroyer, in the Gulf of Tonkin. The incident handed US president Lyndon Johnson the Congressional support he needed to step up military intervention in Vietnam. In 1971, the New York Times reported that the Pentagon Papers, a secret Pentagon report, revealed that the incident had been faked to provide a pretext for escalated military intervention. There had been no attack. The Cheonan incident has all the markings of another Gulf of Tonkin incident. And as usual, the aggressor is accusing the intended victim of an unprovoked attack to justify a policy of aggression under the pretext of self-defense.

1. Kang Hyun-kyung, “Ruling camp differs over NK involvement in disaster”, The Korea Times, April 7, 2010.
2. Nicole Finnemann, “The sinking of the Cheonan”, Korea Economic Institute, April 1, 2010. http://newsmanager.commpartners.com/kei ... -01/1.html
3. “Military leadership adding to Cheonan chaos with contradictory statements”, The Hankyoreh, March 31, 2010.
4. “Birds or North Korean midget submarine?” The Korea Times, April 16, 2010.
5. Ibid.
6. “Military plays down N.K. foul play”, The Korea Herald, April 2, 2010.
7. Ibid.
8. “No subs near Cheonan: Ministry”, JoongAng Daily, April 2, 2010.
9. Jean H. Lee, “South Korea says mine from the North may have sunk warship”, The Washington Post, March 30, 2010.
10. “What caused the Cheonan to sink?” The Chosun Ilbo, March 29, 2010.
11. Ibid.
12. “Military leadership adding to Cheonan chaos with contradictory statements”, The Hankyoreh, March 31, 2010.
13. Blaine Harden, “Brawl Near Koreas’ Border,” The Washington Post, December 3, 2008.
14. “Kim So-hyun, “A touchstone of Lee’s leadership”, The Korea Herald, May 13, 2010.
15. The New York Times, June 12, 2008.
16. Mark Landler, “Clinton condemns attack on South Korean Ship”, The New York Times, May 21, 2010.
17. Kang Hyun-kyung, “Ruling camp differs over NK involvement in disaster”, The Korea Times, April 7, 2010.
18. “Kim So-hyun, “A touchstone of Lee’s leadership”, Korea Herald, May 13, 2010.
19. Kang Hyun-kyung, “Ruling camp differs over NK involvement in disaster”, The Korea Times, April 7, 2010; Choe Sang-Hun, “South Korean sailors say blast that sank their ship came from outside vessel”, The New York Times, April 8, 2010.
20. “Kim So-hyun, “A touchstone of Lee’s leadership”, The Korea Herald, May 13, 2010.
21. “Seoul prepares sanctions over Cheonan sinking”, The Choson Ilbo, May 13, 2010.

[JBG]

I got to "a torpedo would have been spotted by radar" ...

WTF?

[Sea Skimmer]

See, here's the problem with stupid conspiracy theories like this. Without a compelling motive to drive a conspiracy and explain why no one squeels about it, the theory is nothing but a bunch of raving fucking stupidity. The Gulf of Tonkin had a motive, the US was already looking for ways to fight in Vietnam and already had thousands of men fighting. It also had real reason to think it was attacked, bullet holes in a ship are compelling. Meanwhile in 2010.... no one fucking wants to fight North Korea. No one wants to invade or even to need to bomb them, because that would be just be way worse then letting the situation simmer. Ergo, no motive exists to blame North Korea if it was not at fault, and indeed the ROK government delayed blaming them for a great deal of time until it was certain.

This article is written by an obvious idiot in the first place, he thinks a torpedo cannot split a mere 1,200 ton ship in half, hint idiot it can split something ten times that size easily. That tells us enough already, this guy knows nothing and is likely just a liar on everything. But I don't even care, because he doesn't even try to give a real motive, so its safe to throw it in the stupid pile on that lack of merit alone.

[MKSheppard]

This is the most stupid post ever.

The South Koreans have the goddamn serial number on a fragment from that torpedo; and they've compared it and other fragments with an actual torpedo they recovered intact about a decade ago. We're lucky that the incident occured in shallow water; rather than deep water -- otherwise a lot of evidence would've been swept away.

[Master of Ossus]

This article is written by an obvious idiot in the first place, he thinks a torpedo cannot split a mere 1,200 ton ship in half, hint idiot it can split something ten times that size easily. That tells us enough already, this guy knows nothing and is likely just a liar on everything. But I don't even care, because he doesn't even try to give a real motive, so its safe to throw it in the stupid pile on that lack of merit alone.

It's not just that he doesn't think a torpedo could have split the thing in half. He thinks that a reef is a realistic cause of the sinking. Obviously, coral reefs do WAY more damage than torpedoes packing hundreds of kilograms of explosives, and are much more consistent with the location of the most severe damage on the ship.

[Ritterin Sophia]

This article is written by an obvious idiot in the first place, he thinks a torpedo cannot split a mere 1,200 ton ship in half, hint idiot it can split something ten times that size easily. That tells us enough already, this guy knows nothing and is likely just a liar on everything. But I don't even care, because he doesn't even try to give a real motive, so its safe to throw it in the stupid pile on that lack of merit alone.

It's not just that he doesn't think a torpedo could have split the thing in half. He thinks that a reef is a realistic cause of the sinking. Obviously, coral reefs do WAY more damage than torpedoes packing hundreds of kilograms of explosives, and are much more consistent with the location of the most severe damage on the ship.

The Mark 48 Torpedo tests were an inside job!

[weemadando]

This article is written by an obvious idiot in the first place, he thinks a torpedo cannot split a mere 1,200 ton ship in half, hint idiot it can split something ten times that size easily. That tells us enough already, this guy knows nothing and is likely just a liar on everything. But I don't even care, because he doesn't even try to give a real motive, so its safe to throw it in the stupid pile on that lack of merit alone.

It's not just that he doesn't think a torpedo could have split the thing in half. He thinks that a reef is a realistic cause of the sinking. Obviously, coral reefs do WAY more damage than torpedoes packing hundreds of kilograms of explosives, and are much more consistent with the location of the most severe damage on the ship.

And lets not forget that it's a reef that just happened to break the ship's spine and then EXPLODE, and then have the temerity to slink off back to it's reefy hidey-hole before the rescue ships could show up and catch it in the act...

[SAMAS]

I knew it! Coral Reefs are Ultimate Evil! They want to be the the dominant species on the planet! And they'll destroy us all to make it happen!

DESTROY US ALL! DESTROY US ALL! DESTROY US ALL! DESTROY US ALL! DESTROY US ALL! DESTROY US ALL...!

[Illuminatus Primus]

Who is this? Some orthodox Marxist-Leninist retard trying to spread standard boilerplate? I'm surprised he doesn't call North Korea "Democratic Korea", but that's usually something they reserve for within their little sects, not for (misleading) communication with the outside world (read: it would give them away).

All one needs to understand the orthodox M-List (read: Stalinist) is here. Just arbitrarily pick anything not capitalist and label it good, "progressive", and "anti-colonial", even something as shitty as Zimbabwe, which clearly is just being picked on by Western capitalists.

[MKSheppard]

Investigation Result on the Sinking of ROKS "Cheonan"
THU. 20 MAY, 2010

The Joint Civilian-Military Investigation Group

. Opening Statement

The Joint Civilian-Military Investigation Group(JIG) conducted its investigation with 25 experts from 10 top Korean expert agencies, 22 military experts, 3 experts recommended by the National Assembly, and 24 foreign experts constituting 4 support teams from the United States, Australia, the United Kingdom and the Kingdom of Sweden. The JIG is composed of four teams--Scientific Investigation Team, Explosive Analysis Team, Ship Structure Management Team, and Intelligence Analysis Team.

In our statement today, we will provide the results attained by Korean and foreign experts through an investigation and validation process undertaken with a scientific and objective approach.

. The results obtained through an investigation and analysis of the deformation of the hull recovered from the seabed and evidence collected from the site of the incident are as follows:

The JIG assesses that a strong underwater explosion generated by the
detonation of a homing torpedo below and to the left of the gas turbine room
caused Republic of Korea Ship(ROKS) "Cheonan" to split apart and sink.


. The basis of our assessment that the sinking was caused by a torpedo attack is as follows:
. Precise measurement and analysis of the damaged part of the hull indicates that a shockwave and bubble effect caused significant upward bending of the VK(Center Vertical Keel), compared to its original state, and shell plate was steeply ent, with some parts of the ship fragmented.

On the main deck, fracture occurred around the large openings used for maintenance of equipment in the gas turbine room and significant upward deformation is resent on the port side. Also, the bulkhead of the gas turbine room was significantly amaged and deformed.

The bottoms of the stern and bow sections at the failure point were bent upward. his also proves that an underwater explosion took place.

. Through a thorough investigation of the inside and outside of the ship,we have found evidence of extreme pressure on the fin stabilizer, a mechanism
to reduce significant rolling of the ship; water pressure and bubble effects on the
bottom of the hull; and wires cut with no traces of heat. All these point to a strong
shockwave and bubble effect causing the splitting and the sinking of the ship.


. We have analyzed statements by survivors from the incident and a sentry on Baekryong-do.

The survivors made a statement that they heard a near-simultaneous explosion nce or twice, and that water splashed on the face of a port-side lookout who fell from he impact; furthermore, a sentry on the shore of Baekryong-do stated that he witnessed an pproximately 100-meter-high "pillar of white flash" for 2~3 seconds. The forementioned phenomenon is consistent with damage resulting from a shockwave and bubble effect.

. Regarding the medical examination on the deceased service members, no trace of fragmentation or burn injury were found, but fractures and acerations were observed. All of these are consistent with damage resulting from a shockwave and bubble effect.

. The seismic and infrasound wave analysis result conducted by the Korea Institute of Geoscience and Mineral Resources (KIGAM) is as follows:

Seismic wave intensity of 1.5 degrees was detected by 4 stations.
2 infrasound waves with a 1.1-second interval were detected by 11 stations.

The seismic and infrasound waves originated from an identical site of explosion.

This phenomenon corresponds to a shock wave and bubble effect generated by an underwater explosion.

. Numerous simulations of an underwater explosion show that a detonation with a net explosive weight of 200~300kg occurred at a depth of about 6~9m, approximately 3m left of the center of the gas turbine room.

. Based on the analysis of tidal currents off Baekryong-do, the JIG determined that the currents would not prohibit a torpedo attack.

. As for conclusive evidence that can corroborate the use of a torpedo, we have collected propulsion parts, including propulsion motor with propellers and a steering section from the site of the sinking.

The evidence matched in size and shape with the specifications on the
drawing presented in introductory materials provided to foreign
countries by North Korea for export purposes. The marking in Hangul, which reads "1.(Korean) (or No. 1 in English)", found inside the end of the propulsion section, is consistent with the marking of a previously obtained North Korean torpedo. The above evidence allowed the JIG to confirm that the recovered parts were made in North Korea.

. Also, the aforementioned result confirmed that other possible causes for sinking raised, including grounding, fatigue failure, mines, collision and internal explosion, played no part in the incident.

. In conclusion,

The following sums up the opinions of Korean and foreign experts on the conclusive evidence collected from the incident site; hull deformation; statements of relevant personnel; medical examination of the deceased service members; analysis on seismic and infrasound waves; simulation of underwater explosion; and analysis on currents off Baekryong-do and collected torpedo parts.

ROKS "Cheonan" was split apart and sunk due to a shockwave and bubble effect produced by an underwater torpedo explosion.

The explosion occurred approximately 3m left of the center of the gas turbine room, at a depth of about 6~9m.

The weapon system used is confirmed to be a high explosive torpedo with a net explosive weight of about 250kg, manufactured by North Korea.

. In addition, the findings of the Multinational Combined Intelligence Task Force, comprised of 5 states including the US, Australia, Canada and the UK and operating since May 4th, are as follows:

. The North Korean military is in possession of a fleet of about 70 submarines, comprised of approximately 20 Romeo class submarines(1,800 tons), 40 Sango class submarines(300 tons) and 10 midget submarines including the Yeono class(130 tons).

It also possesses torpedoes of various capabilities including straight running, acoustic and wake homing torpedoes with a net explosive weight of about 200 to 300kg, which can deliver the same level of damage that was delivered to the ROKS "Cheonan."

. Given the aforementioned findings combined with the operational environment in the vicinity of the site of the incident, we assess that a small submarine is an underwater weapon system that operates in these operational environment conditions. We confirmed that a few small submarines and a mother ship supporting them left a North Korean naval base in the West Sea 2-3 days prior to the attack and returned to port 2-3 days after the attack.

. Furthermore, we confirmed that all submarines from neighboring countries were either in or near their respective home bases at the time of the incident.

. The torpedo parts recovered at the site of the explosion by a dredging ship on May 15th, which include the 5x5 bladed contra-rotating propellers, propulsion motor and a steering section, perfectly match the schematics of the CHT-02D torpedo included in introductory brochures provided to foreign countries by North Korea for export purposes. The markings in Hangul, which reads "1.(or No. 1 in English)", found inside the end of the propulsion section, is consistent with the marking of a previously obtained North Korean torpedo. Russian and Chinese torpedoes are marked in their respective languages. The CHT-02D torpedo manufactured by North Korea utilizes acoustic/wake homing and passive acoustic tracking methods. It is a heavyweight torpedo with a diameter of 21 inches, a weight of 1.7 tons and a net explosive weight of up to 250kg.

. Based on all such relevant facts and classified analysis, we have reached the
clear conclusion that ROKS "Cheonan" was sunk as the result of an external
underwater explosion caused by a torpedo made in North Korea. The evidence
points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that the torpedo was fired by a North
Korean submarine. There is no other plausible explanation.

[PeZook]

Are there even reefs there? Come on, it couldn't have been difficult to check this claim out...

[Stuart]

Are there even reefs there? Come on, it couldn't have been difficult to check this claim out...

The water is shallowish and there are multiple islands. That's why relatively small ships are used to patrol the area. But, the kind of damage inflicted on the Cheonan is completely incompatible with grounding.

The article in the OP is stupid beyond any kind of rational belief. It is such an obvious distortion of known fact that it defies credulity that anybody could take it seriously. Everybody guessed it was a torpedo right from the start (setting aside modesty for one moment, look at my original posts on the subject). But, everybody behaved sensibly, refrained from making dogmatic statements and excluding possibilities until solid evidence was obtained. Then, possible cause after possible cause was ruled out by hard evidence until we were left with only one possibility - and then that was confirmed by finding wreckage of the torpedo. This was an exemplary case of responsibility in handling something of this type. It's incredible that Stephan Gowans tried to pervert this into an allegation that it was a "Tongkin Gulf Incident" or that somebody took him seriously enough to report his inane comments.

[PeZook]

The water is shallowish and there are multiple islands. That's why relatively small ships are used to patrol the area. But, the kind of damage inflicted on the Cheonan is completely incompatible with grounding.

Yeah, I figured the massive gaping hole in the bottom of the ship seems kinda obvious something fucking exploded there, I was just commenting that a journalist with even a shred of integrity (look how carefully the article lists its sources in an attempt to give itself legitimacy!) should've looked at a random nautical chart and seen if there was a reef (not a shallows: the claim was specific). You know, basic fact-checking. He wouldn't even have to move his fat ass from his chair, just fire off an e-mail to a relevant agency.

And the thing about torpedo and radar? He reports on defence issues and doesn't even know the difference between radar and sonar? I'm a fucking layman and I spotted that!

Jesus christ...

[Stuart]

Yeah, I figured the massive gaping hole in the bottom of the ship seems kinda obvious something fucking exploded there, I was just commenting that a journalist with even a shred of integrity (look how carefully the article lists its sources in an attempt to give itself legitimacy!) should've looked at a random nautical chart and seen if there was a reef (not a shallows: the claim was specific). You know, basic fact-checking. He wouldn't even have to move his fat ass from his chair, just fire off an e-mail to a relevant agency.

Or just looked up Google Earth. I just did and there are two offshore reefs, both kilometers away from the sinking. As you say, Admiralty charts are easy to come by and show all sorts of interesting things. However, all that implies he was interested in fact-checking and all the evidence here is that he wasn't. He had already decided what story he wanted to tell and cherry-picked his information accordingly. In fact, I'd suggest that his failure to mention charts of the area suggests he did check up, found there were no reefs in the area and so omitted the mention of charts completely.

And the thing about torpedo and radar? He reports on defence issues and doesn't even know the difference between radar and sonar?

Yeah, bewildering isn't it. The problem is that the old days when military journalists had either served in the armed forces or been doing their job long enough to understand such things are long gone. Now, qualifications for "military correspondent" extend no further than "I watched an episode of Deadliest Warrior last night". But, this Op was bad even by those standards. At first, I thought it was from The Onion.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Meh, its run-of-the-mill Stalinist agitprop. I'm surprised this guy didn't call it "Democratic Korea" and lard it with stinky layers of unnecessary proprietary Marxist-Leninist rhetoric. I ran into one of these guys a couple weeks back, tried to argue that Stalin's show trials were legitimate and proper (when pressed, apparently Trotsky was 'in communication' with remaining Bolshevik leaders; I don't exactly see how this substantiates the claim they were tools of Western secret police since the Revolution, but what do I know?). He also claimed the Ukrainian etc. famines were do to bad weather (is this why there would have been adequate food to meet dietary needs if requisitioning had not continued despite starvation?).

[Ziggy Stardust]

Yeah, bewildering isn't it. The problem is that the old days when military journalists had either served in the armed forces or been doing their job long enough to understand such things are long gone. Now, qualifications for "military correspondent" extend no further than "I watched an episode of Deadliest Warrior last night". But, this Op was bad even by those standards. At first, I thought it was from The Onion.

I mean, it's published on WORDPRESS, it's not like this is an actual correspondent. It's just some moron with a blog, half a brain, and poor Google-fu.

[Steve]

I'm guessing Sean's taken one look at the replies and has scurried off to hide. Though he's probably also convincing himself you're all liars trying to justify American imperialism against the noble Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

Some things never change.

[Isolder74]

More to the point, preparing santions on the chance that the sinking was a deliberate act does little to prove his point. To say that preparing a responce is proof of that being what they were planning in the first place and set this up to justify it is ludicris. Only the most inept government wouldn't start planning something to deal with something this big. It is not in the nature of government in general.

[CJvR]

And the thing about torpedo and radar? He reports on defence issues and doesn't even know the difference between radar and sonar? I'm a fucking layman and I spotted that!

Well the advantage of having seen the light and knowing the ultimate truth is that you don't need to bother with minor details like fact checking.

[General Mung Beans]

Who is this? Some orthodox Marxist-Leninist retard trying to spread standard boilerplate? I'm surprised he doesn't call North Korea "Democratic Korea", but that's usually something they reserve for within their little sects, not for (misleading) communication with the outside world (read: it would give them away).

All one needs to understand the orthodox M-List (read: Stalinist) is here. Just arbitrarily pick anything not capitalist and label it good, "progressive", and "anti-colonial", even something as shitty as Zimbabwe, which clearly is just being picked on by Western capitalists.

I know this guy from Alternate History Discussion Board-he's defended Robert Mugabe-so you are absolutely right.

[Stuart]

I know this guy from Alternate History Discussion Board-he's defended Robert Mugabe-so you are absolutely right.

Mulligan or Gowans?

[General Mung Beans]

I know this guy from Alternate History Discussion Board-he's defended Robert Mugabe-so you are absolutely right.

Mulligan or Gowans?

Mulligan.