|
To add some of the human element to the discussion: Shin Dong-hyuk witnessed beatings of children at his primary “school” and saw his mother subjected to “kneeling motionless” punishments in the field for failing to meet work quotas. He himself was subjected to prolonged and systematic torture, including burnings and skin piercings, in an interrogation-punishment cell within Kwan-li-so Prison Camp No. 18. Also, he was required to sit in the front row to observe the public execution of his mother and brother, and his finger was cut off at the knuckle for an accidental error during his forced labor in a textile factory in Camp 18.
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 00:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 07:52 |
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Yeah it technically wouldn't be collateral damage if they were specifically ordered to do it, good point. Have you considered what it might be indicative of institutionally and culturally that it's considered "stupid" for a soldier in the U.S. to endorse something like, say, the My Lai massacre? Why would that at all indicate there's a likely risk of mass summary executions suddenly becoming common practice if/when NK folds? Institutionally, the US Armed Forces are absolutely OK with committing genocide and has not rejected genocide as a policy. The US Army may be smart enough to shut down anyone dumb enough to say that My Lai was cool fun times, but they haven't rejected the use of free-fire zones that caused My Lai, either. So, basically, if the US agreed in principle to complete nuclear disarmament and admitted it deliberately promoted a policy of massacring civilians in Vietnam and rejected the use of that policy in the future, there'd be a lot more room to think they wouldn't slaughter civilians in the future, too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 00:48
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:The lack of any standing order labeled "KILL THEM NORK SONS OF BITCHES" does not actually say anything about how the US Army would react, because for one thing that order would be stupid to commit to paper and for another thing I'm not arguing that the American military is necessarily run by people largely indifferent to collateral damage, but that institutionally it is quite willing to adopt policies that involve mass slaughter of civilians. Considering the US military also hosts one of if not the largest humanitarian logistical networks in the world the idea that they would callously gun down unarmed refugees sounds like, uh, North Korean propaganda
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 00:50
|
|
|
Mrs. Bang Mi-sun observed ten pregnant women in early 2002 taken to a hospital from the Musan An-jeon-bu detention facility for the purpose of aborting their “half-Chinese babies.” Another seven month pregnant woman adamantly refused to go to the hospital and guards compelled male prisoners to jump on her stomach until the woman aborted on the floor. The woman was then taken to the hospital where she died.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 00:50
|
|
|
Why the US would give a poo poo about South Korea having to feed some refugees is beyond me. They have yet to deploy at the Bosphorus to machinegun Syrians headed for Europe.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 00:51
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Considering the US military also hosts one of if not the largest humanitarian logistical networks in the world the idea that they would callously gun down unarmed refugees sounds like, uh, North Korean propaganda I'm sure that them throwing chocolate bars to people in occupied territories would absolutely prevent the US military from launching nuclear weapons, and that our nuclear arsenal is a total sham.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 00:52
|
|
|
I like the combination of refusing to believe a/o care about all the documentation of NK running concentration camps while being very upset at nonexistent future US war crimes. It's like evidence has a reverse effect on outrage, the more something actually exists the less it's worth thinking about.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 00:53
|
|
|
Homework Explainer posted:then what were you talking about The kidnapping claim, dummy. Brainiac Five posted:Thank you for changing the subject in order to avoid any further awkward questions. I'm not done with the previous topic yet. You claimed that China has washed its hands of North Korea, and that they're not showing interest in getting Pyongyang to disarm. This isn't really supported by facts, though. China is still an active participant in the Six Party Talks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 00:56
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:I'm sure that them throwing chocolate bars to people in occupied territories would absolutely prevent the US military from launching nuclear weapons, and that our nuclear arsenal is a total sham. What the heck are you talking about?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 01:04
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Institutionally, the US Armed Forces are absolutely OK with committing genocide and has not rejected genocide as a policy. The US Army may be smart enough to shut down anyone dumb enough to say that My Lai was cool fun times, but they haven't rejected the use of free-fire zones that caused My Lai, either. So, basically, if the US agreed in principle to complete nuclear disarmament and admitted it deliberately promoted a policy of massacring civilians in Vietnam and rejected the use of that policy in the future, there'd be a lot more room to think they wouldn't slaughter civilians in the future, too. So in addition to being unable to produce any evidence that this would happen to NK refugees, you also fail to understand what genocide is. Despite being morally gray and explicitly reprehensible, respectively, neither free-fire zones nor My Lai were genocide. If you had kept your claims way more limited to something like, "China and the U.S. might take a 'break a few eggs to make an omelette' attitude towards overzealous sentries shooting some refugees crossing roadblocks" you might've been more connected to reality. And you could've found examples of that in the Iraqi occupation. But you just had to swing for the fences.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 01:09
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
Best Friends posted:I like the combination of refusing to believe a/o care about all the documentation of NK running concentration camps while being very upset at nonexistent future US war crimes. It's like evidence has a reverse effect on outrage, the more something actually exists the less it's worth thinking about. You're talking about two different people, so your post is a lie and I'll kindly ask that you retract it now. Fojar38 posted:What the heck are you talking about? The US has a stated policy of committing genocide with nuclear weapons. DeusExMachinima posted:So in addition to being unable to produce any evidence that this would happen to NK refugees, you also fail to understand what genocide is. Despite being morally gray and explicitly reprehensible, respectively, neither free-fire zones nor My Lai were genocide. If you had kept your claims way more limited to something like, "China and the U.S. might take a 'break a few eggs to make an omelette' attitude towards overzealous sentries shooting some refugees crossing roadblocks" you might've been more connected to reality. And you could've found examples of that in the Iraqi occupation. But you just had to swing for the fences. Nukes are genocidal weapons, as employed by the USA and indeed every nation that maintains a nuclear arsenal. I'm sorry you're dumber than the average housecat.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 01:12
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:You're talking about two different people, so your post is a lie and I'll kindly ask that you retract it now. Do you know what "Genocide" means? Edit: It's a specific word with a specific context that you're very specifically using incorrectly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 01:15
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:Do you know what "Genocide" means? Dude, are we going to argue that nuclear weapons aren't stockpiled for the purpose of maintaining the capability of annihilating nations and thus attempting to kill, in whole or in part, people on the basis of their particular nationality?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 01:22
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:The US has a stated policy of committing genocide with nuclear weapons. OK, so you've completely dropped the Nork refugee genocide hypothetical in this post. Whether you want to argue that maintaining nukes or using them on Japanese cities is genocidal, that's not inherently linked to the capitalism vs. socialism divide in any way as seen by the fact that all major WW2 combatants were working towards them and the USSR and PRC have held/hold them. Wait a minute, does this mean that NK is a genocidal actor now in your book?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 01:26
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:The US has a stated policy of committing genocide with nuclear weapons. And that has any bearing on how the US military would react to a refugee crisis how?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 01:26
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:OK, so you've completely dropped the Nork refugee genocide hypothetical in this post. Whether you want to argue that maintaining nukes or using them on Japanese cities is genocidal, that's not inherently linked to the capitalism vs. socialism divide in any way as seen by the fact that all major WW2 combatants were working towards them and the USSR and PRC have held/hold them. You made no substantive reply and implicitly admitted the US pursues policies that involve civilian slaughter. Now you're trying to impute motives. There's no end to your perfidy. Yep! The leadership of the DPRK are real motherfuckers for many reasons.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 01:30
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:And that has any bearing on how the US military would react to a refugee crisis how? They're morally okay with slaughtering civilians in incredible numbers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 01:31
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:You made no substantive reply and implicitly admitted the US pursues policies that involve civilian slaughter. Now you're trying to impute motives. There's no end to your perfidy. Your response to being told that your supporting examples for a hypothetical DPRK refugee genocide, My Lai and free fire zones, aren't genocide, was to retort that the U.S. holds nuclear weapons which in your view are morally inexcusable. Regardless of whether nukes are ethical weapons, this actually doesn't demonstrate in any way that North Korean refugees have to fear the U.S. military more than their own or that DPRK's doubtlessly super-intimidating Cold War surplus posturing is adding to its citizens' safety.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 01:35
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:I'm sure that them throwing chocolate bars to people in occupied territories would absolutely prevent the US military from launching nuclear weapons, and that our nuclear arsenal is a total sham. That is, presumably, is why we've already launched several nuclear strikes against the refugees leaving Syria, Afghanistan, and other Middle Eastern countries, yes?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 01:36
|
|
|
swampman, Homework Explainer, I have a small question for you two, if you don't mind. Do you believe that Pol Pot holds responsibility for the massacres perpetrated by the communist Khmer Rouge regime from 1975-1979? For that matter, do you believe that those massacres occurred?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 01:41
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Your response to being told that your supporting examples for a hypothetical DPRK refugee genocide, My Lai and free fire zones, aren't genocide, was to retort that the U.S. holds nuclear weapons which in your view are morally inexcusable. Regardless of whether nukes are ethical weapons, this actually doesn't demonstrate in any way that North Korean refugees have to fear the U.S. military more than their own or that DPRK's doubtlessly super-intimidating Cold War surplus posturing is adding to its citizens' safety. Holy poo poo you gibbering illiterate, I mentioned nukes in the post you responded to. Why you have to throw lying into this zany discussion is beyond me, but liars go to hell, it is said. Especially if they keep doing it in some insane tactic right out of the NKVD playbook. "Ah, comrade, but this statement about where you were last night does not refute that you are a spy." Absurd.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 01:41
|
|
|
PleasingFungus posted:That is, presumably, is why we've already launched several nuclear strikes against the refugees leaving Syria, Afghanistan, and other Middle Eastern countries, yes? Thank god the US military can be turned from its bloodlust. Let's make sure this happens for prospective NK refugees.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 01:43
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Thank god the US military can be turned from its bloodlust. Let's make sure this happens for prospective NK refugees.  can we talk about current reality?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 01:48
|
|
|
Famethrowa posted:
Sure. American diplomacy regarding North Korea is not motivated by humanitarian concerns.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 01:50
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:They're morally okay with slaughtering civilians in incredible numbers. Yes, in a nuclear total war scenario. Therefore they would gun down millions of refugees who pose no threat? Why are you applying nuclear war doctrine to a hypothetical refugee crisis exactly?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 01:51
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Therefore they would gun down millions of refugees who pose no threat? If they'd kill innocents for political purposes, why would they suddenly balk when it's conventional explosives instead of radiation and blast pressure and fallout doing it?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 01:54
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Sure. American diplomacy regarding North Korea is not motivated by humanitarian concerns. It is possible to be motivated by multiple concerns, e.g., both realpolitik and humanitarian concerns. The fact that US food aid to NK (and Egypt, among others) is clearly motivated by the former does not preclude the latter.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 01:54
|
|
|
PleasingFungus posted:It is possible to be motivated by multiple concerns, e.g., both realpolitik and humanitarian concerns. The fact that US food aid to NK (and Egypt, among others) is clearly motivated by the former does not preclude the latter. The US isn't actually sending food aid to North Korea at the moment, and I think it's really questionable to posit that humanitarian concerns are on the radar of the people responsible for developing and implementing policy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 01:55
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:If they'd kill innocents for political purposes, why would they suddenly balk when it's conventional explosives instead of radiation and blast pressure and fallout doing it? Because a refugee crisis and a nuclear war aren't the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 02:04
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Because a refugee crisis and a nuclear war aren't the same thing. So what are the circumstances under which mass murder via nukes is acceptable?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 02:07
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:The US isn't actually sending food aid to North Korea at the moment, and I think it's really questionable to posit that humanitarian concerns are on the radar of the people responsible for developing and implementing policy. It isn't but South Korea feeding refugees is also not a particular concern or interest to anyone in the US.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 02:09
|
|
|
Anosmoman posted:It isn't but South Korea feeding refugees is also not a particular concern or interest to anyone in the US. The gently caress has this to do with anything?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 02:10
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:I'm pretty sure that if that were to happen, the US and PRC would simply massacre North Korean refugees with barely a peep of public indignation Brainiac Five posted:Thank god the US military can be turned from its bloodlust. It's beautiful.  Brainiac Five posted:So what are the circumstances under which mass murder via nukes is acceptable? Never. Of course equal retaliation is morally justified, which precludes it from being murder.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 02:12
|
|
|
A US ally collapsing under a colossal refugee crisis is of interest to the US government, even if we set aside humanitarian concerns.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 02:12
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:The gently caress has this to do with anything? The US would kill "innocents for political purposes" but there is no purpose in killing refugees in South Korea, political or otherwise. Why do you think anyone in the US would give the tiniest poo poo that South Korea has to build refugee camps? The US doesn't give a poo poo about refugee camps anywhere else. Krazyface posted:A US ally collapsing under a colossal refugee crisis is of interest to the US government, even if we set aside humanitarian concerns. Yes but there is no reason to think it would collapse.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 02:13
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:It's beautiful. Too bad the US doesn't solely endorse equal retaliation, then!
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 02:13
|
|
|
Anosmoman posted:The US would kill "innocents for political purposes" but there is no purpose in killing refugees in South Korea, political or otherwise. Why do you think anyone in the US would give the tiniest poo poo that South Korea has to build refugee camps? The US doesn't give a poo poo about refugee camps anywhere else. But I thought it would be this enormous political crisis devastating SK and China. You're telling me that's stupid Yellow Peril racism? Boy do I have egg on my face for buying what the clowns in this thread are selling!
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 02:15
|
|
|
I've met South Koreans who did research on American massacres of Korean refugees and I'm very sure it happened.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 02:15
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:So what are the circumstances under which mass murder via nukes is acceptable? During a total war scenario.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 02:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 07:52 |
|
|
Fojar38 posted:During a total war scenario. gently caress yes, I can use nukes during a war of conquest, and it's totally moral!!
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 02:19
|
|