Fox Fire

Kim Jong Un and stuff

106 posts in this topic

You want to read something straight from the DPRK?

http://www.kcna.co.jp/index-e.htm

Have fun. I like to play a fun game I call "Cross-check the KCNA". Do Google searches for the people mentioned in KCNA articles and see where else they appear. (Hint: You can find a lot of North Korean websites this way, because the people don't actually exist.)

 

After reading a few articles, I decided that I can't wait until the NK people see American flags marching down Pyongyang streets. Especially when the North Korean state news promised them ahead of time that the US and South Koreans are idiots at war and that their militaries would crumble to the North Koreans.

 

The DPRK won a victory in the battles against the U.S.-led imperialist allied forces in the Korean War in the 1950s. It was not ascribable to the DPRK's numerical and technological advantages.

 

Ha, that's hilarious. It really is. North Korea didn't do sh*t in the Korean War because they were backed by China and dear mother Russia, who did all the real work. This time, they have no superpower to back them up: All they have are their war technologies from the 1950s and their ten million able bodied North Koreans, provided that they don't starve before the war starts.

Edited by chrisford

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You want to read something straight from the DPRK?

http://www.kcna.co.jp/index-e.htm

Why, that wasn't biased at all lol.

 

On another note I was watching something on CNN about a few Americans who traveled to North Korea the average citizens there aren't entirely "concerned" I guess about relations between the DPRK and the rest of the world which is something I thought was interesting.

Also laughed at this on the introduction page of the site "It develops the friendly and cooperative relations with foreign news agencies."

Edited by Shellhound

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pandora refuses to believe anything Western media tells him and will only believe what the DPRK says itself, so I figured I might as well provide a source.

 

After reading this thread though, I find it amazing how misinformed Pandora is and am a bit worried he will believe some of those articles.



On another note I was watching something on CNN about a few Americans who traveled to North Korea the average citizens there aren't entirely "concerned" I guess about relations between the DPRK and the rest of the world which is something I thought was interesting.

 

Yea, I listened to an interview on BBC from a teacher that just got back from the DPRK. He said that they would go outside and the streets would be peaceful and quiet with children playing and women sweeping, then he would go inside and see "live" military parades on the streets he was just walking. He said his DPRK handlers didn't believe there would actually be a war either.

 

The BBC also snuck in a journalist recently and we should be getting a nice documentary out of it soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But it can not break the will of the army and the people of the DPRK that have achieved the single-minded unity more powerful than nuclear weapons. 

 

Let's see if they still believe that after a yellow mushroom appears in the sky over Pyongyang.

Pandora refuses to believe anything Western media tells him and will only believe what the DPRK says itself, so I figured I might as well provide a source.

 

The Western media isn't exactly something I'd call trustworthy, either.

Edited by chrisford

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haven't had a chance to read them yet but I highly doubt I would beleieve most of it. Maybe some. That's the great thing about reading from many different national medias. If you read both sides, you get a better understanding of what is really going on. I read Pravda all the time and let me tell you, that site is absolutely rediculous. But the writers there (whom gave up on arguing with me) do bring up a pretty good point once in a while.

The thing we all need to understand is that western media is just as full of propaganda as any other media.

If I would have taken CNNs word about Ossetia, Id litterally know nothing about what actually happened there.

I don't have some love for foreign media or anything. But I certainly won't trust the word of a single side.

And I imagine the NK citizens aren't very concerned. You can watch interviews with NK people who have escaped and they tell you that their govt is all they know. They are hardwired, litterally from birth, to worship the state. NK started out Communist and not half bad. From there, they slowly moved to statism and worship of the Kim "dynasty."

CNN had an interview with somebody who was born in a NK prison camp. His story wasn't just sad, but it shows how easily you can control a persons mind simply by not allowing them to know what else exists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Please stop misspelling that word. It's ridiculous.

 

2. Learn how to use "who" and "whom". "whom" cannot be the subject of a verb and therefore "whom" cannot "gave up".

 

3. CNN !== Western Media. If you truly want to talk down on western media and talk about its "propaganda" then you have to at least read different western media sources. In this case, many news sources have actually done a pretty good job of displaying both sides of the current kerfuffle. Kim Jong-Un has been relatively transparent during his rule; allowing AP to establish a bureau in Pyongyang, inviting western media to see their missile launch operations and admitting to the failure of that rocket launch. Recent reports from tourists in North Korea have talked of being allowed to interact with North Korean citizens in Pyongyang and walk around the streets near the hotel without an escort. CNN doesn't readily report such things because it is not in the business of intellectual news. It is in the business of making money and sensationalizing trivial events to do so. So please, stop equating CNN to western media and try broadening your horizons. You'll find that there are some excellent western media outlets available.

Edited by Longbowe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. I appologize for not having spellcheck on my phone and not caring enough to reread what I post. I've also completely missed certain letters, mixed them up, and forgotten punctuation. If you want to turn this into a grammar competition though, you"ll lose. Writing is my hobby.

Sorry I don't check everything before I post. Didn't think it was important enough for that.

As for media, I find that even media like VICE has its lies and propaganda..... Which is pretty sad. VICE is known for reporting on things others refuse to, yet even they tend to press a certain idea on people.

Propaganda is not about being right or wrong. Quite frankly, that doesn't even matter. Propagandas purpose is to convince somebody of something..... Nothing more, nothing less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any sort of media is going to have some bias to it simply because people are biased. Any sort of "I don't watch xx because they're so biased" is simply retarded, facts are facts and you can't really change that (unless they're just straight up lying of course) if you can't form your own opinion off of the facts and have to rely on the person telling them to you to gain an opinion then you're really no better than the mindless sheeple that people who do that complain about. 

Edited by Shellhound

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. I appologize for not having spellcheck on my phone and not caring enough to reread what I post. I've also completely missed certain letters, mixed them up, and forgotten punctuation. If you want to turn this into a grammar competition though, you"ll lose. Writing is my hobby.

Sorry I don't check everything before I post. Didn't think it was important enough for that.

As for media, I find that even media like VICE has its lies and propaganda..... Which is pretty sad. VICE is known for reporting on things others refuse to, yet even they tend to press a certain idea on people.

Propaganda is not about being right or wrong. Quite frankly, that doesn't even matter. Propagandas purpose is to convince somebody of something..... Nothing more, nothing less.

1. LOL I highly doubt I would lose, but that post is the fifth time I've seen you misspell that one word in this thread alone.

2. Communication is trying to convince someone of something. Propaganda presents only one side of a story in a deliberate attempt to further a specific agenda. Journalists, while biased due to the circumstances of their life, make an attempt to show both sides of a story and help connect events so the reader can make more informed decisions. Do certain media outlets engage in propaganda? Yes, as I said before. Does that mean all media is propaganda? No.

Edited by Longbowe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some one wrote this on another forum I found it mildly entertaining and probably true.

 

Doughboy has declared nuclear war upon us and our Allies, has nuclear capabilities, and has missiles that can reach our allies. Our allies within range must be protected and the only way to be sure is to disarm Doughboy's Nuclear capabilities. Doughboy will never give them up, so he's signed his own death warrant.

The only reason he's still vertical is he was holding Seoul hostage to his shell artillery in the mountains. I'm rather sure that has already changed, evidenced by the placating for a few days to be followed with Kerry stating that launching would be a "huge mistake", though no other significant, provocative move had been made by Doughboy during those intervening days.

Yep. We're ready now.

We were already about 99.9% sure we can take out all his missiles. Artillery shells do not give a large enough heat signature and in themselves, are too small to be targeted by anti-missile defense. Not only are our Centurion anti mortar and shell defense platforms well tested, I would be surprised if deployment around Seoul isn't at it's maximum saturation point with every one we had available by now, We've also been sending SK practically all of our newest tech, a "smart" artillery shell designed to come straight down on hidden targets to silence them, at a neck-break pace.

We've been pinpointing these field pieces since this fool started his rantings and I would be surprised if 99.9% of his artillery emplacements don't already have their location coordinates locked into at least 2 surface to surface missiles for each of them.

Frankly, whether he fires his missile or not, if he doesn't pull them back, open his country to have the nuclear arms removed, and play "good lapdog" to the UN and China, we are likely to "see" his missile being primed for launch, or get get "new" Intel giving us reason to believe those missiles are nuclear-tipped, (even if its a raw chunk of plutonium the size of a pea) and be "forced" to take action before it actually flies.

When that happens, we will blow his military so far back into the stone age his restart point will be rediscovering fire.

 

 

Cheers,

-Zukran

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some one wrote this on another forum I found it mildly entertaining and probably true.

 

 

 

Cheers,

-Zukran

 

As someone said earlier in this thread, the US will pound the hell out of them if they try anything stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All this talk about missles, but when it comes down to it, its more about who is more willing to die. NK are litterally bred to do this these days.....

Just look at how long Afghanistan is taking.... Look at Vietnam. That wasn't insurgent groups either. There were 2 different groups. NVA and the North Vietnamese govt. Then the Viet Kong who were basically Southern Vietnamese who supported the north. As we faught them and killed god knows how many civillians in the process, more and more people sided with the north. We basically faught 90% of that nation for a government that was probably even worse than what we were fighting.

These days, modern warfare always resorts to guerilla tactics. The foreigners always loose quite simply because of the social situation of modern guerilla warfare and the casualties it purposely causes.

I mean, it just seems that the only sure fire way to take out terrorists safely these days is a few Navy Seals.

I mean I could be wrong but we could witness some crazy stuff happen in a country that crazy.

Longbowe, all media naturaly is propaganda. Whatever the opinion of the source is on the subject, will be the point of view presenting the information, thus presented in a way they view is the whatever appropriate manner. Sometimes facts, are in fact, completely ignored or attempted to be hidden in order to support their opinions.

That happens everywhere nomatter where you're getting a source from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Vietnam in the sense that you're using it is irrelevant. In Vietnam the US was supporting an unpopular govt. he didn't adhere to the elections that had been agreed upon, a lot of people not just in the North but in South Vietnam started to despise the US and what might have been the most deciding factor of all was that the US was receiving no support from home. We disagreed with the war, the draft and everything about the situation; should we go to war with NK though that simply wouldn't be the same. We would have int. support (most likely), support from home, and NK wouldn't have the moral advantage in this war. Willingness to die might be one thing but I'd take an alive soldier than a dead one any day of the week. Technology, numbers, and better training would overcome the North Koreans. Not to mention the fact that the reason Guerrilla Warfare has worked so well in the past against our troops is because for the most part we weren't fighting a single country but groups of people hidden within a population. That isn't entirely true with Vietnam but the vietcong was certainly more than a nuisance, if not for the Vietcong I honestly believe the US might have won that war; it still would've been a toss-up but North Korea certainly doesn't have the advantages that the NVA had going for them at the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Longbowe, all media naturaly is propaganda. Whatever the opinion of the source is on the subject, will be the point of view presenting the information, thus presented in a way they view is the whatever appropriate manner. Sometimes facts, are in fact, completely ignored or attempted to be hidden in order to support their opinions.

That happens everywhere nomatter where you're getting a source from.

Thank you for reminding me that you are too stupid to waste time on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It it incredibly easy to fight a war when you know who you're fighting against. Afghanistan and Vietnam were completely different kinds of war where we were shooting blindly into crowds hoping that the guy we shot was who we were looking for. In the case of North Korea, we know who we are fighting against: the people in green helmets.

 

Also, I think the state of the North Korean military speaks for itself if they have to photoshop pictures of military drills before they release them to the international community.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you guys are assuming that a war with NK wouldn't degrade into a guerrilla war?

Iraq was a nation with a standing military using (for the most part) conventional warfare. After we dropped his military, we still stayed there for years fighting a population of mostly civilians who after witnessing their country get destroyed, decided to fight the foreign invaders they viewed as imperialist.

The Viet Cong were essentially the same thing. Same goes for Afghanistan and the Taliban. Although, they weren't nearly as prepared for a conventional war.

Thank you for reminding me that you are too stupid to waste time on.

Ditto. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you guys are assuming that a war with NK wouldn't degrade into a guerrilla war?

Iraq was a nation with a standing military using (for the most part) conventional warfare. After we dropped his military, we still stayed there for years fighting a population of mostly civilians who after witnessing their country get destroyed, decided to fight the foreign invaders they viewed as imperialist.

The Viet Cong were essentially the same thing. Same goes for Afghanistan and the Taliban. Although, they weren't nearly as prepared for a conventional war.

Ditto. :)

 

The entire country is mountains, it might be kind of hard to engage in guerrilla tactics there. Unlike Vietnam and its forests, we have experience fighting in mountains (it's also kind of hard to hide in mountains the way you could in a rainforest).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe it's Guerrilla warfare that's the problem, the main problem arises when you have unknown groups fighting with guerrilla tactics. Guerrilla warfare we can handle in this day and age when it's a military using those tactics, but when it's groups of seemingly normal people (Taliban for example) then it becomes a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The entire country is mountains, it might be kind of hard to engage in guerrilla tactics there. Unlike Vietnam and its forests, we have experience fighting in mountains (it's also kind of hard to hide in mountains the way you could in a rainforest).

Actually you'd be surprised how easy it really is. I watched a documentary once about this battle in afghanistan. I forgot the name of it, but it was named after the soldier who died in it.

In the documentary, a unit of American soldiers had to go set up a base on top of a hill. Reason being, that specific hill was constantly being used by snipers to shoot at US troops and then vanish into a nearby village and its surrounding population. The idea was to make the enemy realize that that hill wasn't going to be used as a sniper nest anymore.

That didn't stop them from trying to reclaim it several times with intense firefights and killing a US soldier in the proccess.

One thing that stood out in this video is the fact that they tried hard to hunt down the specific people who were shooting at soldiers in this village. While wandering said village doing what they do, they showed a complete lack of respect for the people living there and pissed off the village elders. I didn't quite reach the end of it, so IDK what the outcome was, but it seemed pretty easy for these people to hide, even in a blank dessert.

Shell, which is the whole idea of guerrilla warfare. Even when military does it, its virtually the same. Like the art of Ninjutsu back in the old Japan, Guerilla warfare is designed to be sneaky and force the enemy to either over react or give up, knowing they can't fight an enemy they can't see.

Anti-Guerrilla warfare never works. The only thing that does, is gaining the trust of the surrounding population. Try to convince them to side with you. When you invade somebodies home and destroy their lives, that's pretty hard to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually you'd be surprised how easy it really is. I watched a documentary once about this battle in afghanistan. I forgot the name of it, but it was named after the soldier who died in it.

In the documentary, a unit of American soldiers had to go set up a base on top of a hill. Reason being, that specific hill was constantly being used by snipers to shoot at US troops and then vanish into a nearby village and its surrounding population. The idea was to make the enemy realize that that hill wasn't going to be used as a sniper nest anymore.

That didn't stop them from trying to reclaim it several times with intense firefights and killing a US soldier in the proccess.

One thing that stood out in this video is the fact that they tried hard to hunt down the specific people who were shooting at soldiers in this village. While wandering said village doing what they do, they showed a complete lack of respect for the people living there and pissed off the village elders. I didn't quite reach the end of it, so IDK what the outcome was, but it seemed pretty easy for these people to hide, even in a blank dessert.

Shell, which is the whole idea of guerrilla warfare. Even when military does it, its virtually the same. Like the art of Ninjutsu back in the old Japan, Guerilla warfare is designed to be sneaky and force the enemy to either over react or give up, knowing they can't fight an enemy they can't see.

Anti-Guerrilla warfare never works. The only thing that does, is gaining the trust of the surrounding population. Try to convince them to side with you. When you invade somebodies home and destroy their lives, that's pretty hard to do.

 

 

Now, the question is, are we destroying their lives, or are we liberating them from a totalitarian government?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, the question is, are we destroying their lives, or are we liberating them from a totalitarian government?

That's a brilliant question. One I ask myself often.

The fact that Iraq is currently in a total cival war and the fact that we are STILL in Afghanistan, not to mention the fact that Islamic extremism is only growing (especially since we invaded Iraq) tells you that is a highly debatable question.

Let me ask you something, let's say China invaded us and got the upper hand. Enough that their soldiers could litterally walk into your home and do whatever they wanted, search through your personal items, etc. Let's say this same China was trying to help us build a society and government that they viewed as peaceful and appropriate.

Say they provided you with well needed food even though they show a complete lack of respect for you and your culture and privacy.

What would your view of them be?

I don't doubt that our intentions in the middle east are (somewhat) good. I just highly doubt that what we want, is what they want.

Hence after 10 years of war and trying to "help" Iraq, they are now in an all out civil war simmaler to Syria.

To add to that, its very possible to do both at the same time. Impretty sure that if somebody invaded America and bombed your house, killed your friends, etc, you wouldn't give a damn what their intentions were. You'd just want them out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a brilliant question. One I ask myself often.

The fact that Iraq is currently in a total cival war and the fact that we are STILL in Afghanistan, not to mention the fact that Islamic extremism is only growing (especially since we invaded Iraq) tells you that is a highly debatable question.

Let me ask you something, let's say China invaded us and got the upper hand. Enough that their soldiers could litterally walk into your home and do whatever they wanted, search through your personal items, etc. Let's say this same China was trying to help us build a society and government that they viewed as peaceful and appropriate.

Say they provided you with well needed food even though they show a complete lack of respect for you and your culture and privacy.

What would your view of them be?

I don't doubt that our intentions in the middle east are (somewhat) good. I just highly doubt that what we want, is what they want.

Hence after 10 years of war and trying to "help" Iraq, they are now in an all out civil war simmaler to Syria.

To add to that, its very possible to do both at the same time. Impretty sure that if somebody invaded America and bombed your house, killed your friends, etc, you wouldn't give a damn what their intentions were. You'd just want them out.

you should read "Crisis of Islam" by Bernard Lewis. Rather enlightening. The scary thing about it though, is that the author (PhD in middle eastern studies) states himself that he is unsure of the middle east's future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a brilliant question. One I ask myself often.

The fact that Iraq is currently in a total cival war and the fact that we are STILL in Afghanistan,

  

You can't build a country in a day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now