Only in the Guardian

Do they write these articles to stir up the comments section?


.
 
Last edited:
God knows. You think it would have been spiked because its clearly insane. How anyone can defend that state of all states in beyond belief
 
I didn't read the comments after the article (never do) and I have never heard of the guy that wrote the article.

He seems to have left out some critical information (most notably that the RFU is a heavily left-leaning organisation that enjoys little mainstream support in South Korea) and I agree with you that the slant is predictably one-sided. That said, the two incidents he cited later in the article (the 2010 Yeonpyeong attack and the sinking of the Cheonan) are largely accurate (though to say it wasn't widely reported that SK had been conducting tests is wide of the mark).

I think a more accurate and wider criticism of media coverage of 'rogue' nations like North Korea and Iran is that they are often assumed to be inherently unstable, or their leaders irrational, when there is extremely limited evidence that this is actually the case (and significant evidence that it is not). The regimes themselves are certainly worthy of criticism, but they aren't utter lunatics by any means.
 
You dont think that the north korean leaders are completely off their heads? they are sadistic psycopaths...christ...anyone can see that

What more evidence does anyone need to see that the absolute cruelty of the north korean regime is anything that would disgust any rational human being?

next thing we know we will be reading that pol pot and hitler just had a bad press
 
Last edited:
Cruel and sadistic: yes.
Psychopaths: no.

I think all leaders are fundamentally rational in that they are willing to act towards retaining power. In a dictatorship this can lead to some very nasty and cruel actions, but it does not mean that they are willing to start wars that are likely to end in them losing power and/or having their country smashed to oblivion.

What evidence would you cite as to the irrationality of the North Korean leadership? And I am not talking about the (clearly disgusting) acts they have inflicted against their own people.

It may be an unpopular (and uncertainly un-Guardianlike!) view, but I think nuclear weapons have made the world less prone to war. There hasn't been a major war between nuclear-armed states (or countries protected under a nuclear umbrella). I don't think that is a coincidence.
 
Well i am talking about the acts they have inflicted upon their people. The author seems to indicate that in general Nk is judged unfairly, which frankly is madness

I am not so sure that all leaders have always acted rationally in a war sense, but can agree to soem extent about nuclear weapons in present hands. The danger would be a leadership that believed that death and destruction is some noble cause. A nuclear armed AlQuaeda state (which afganistan could easily have become) would probably have few qualms about suicidal attacks

Also, nuclear armed states dont have to attack purely through missiles. Iran and others would probably happliy supply "dirty bombs" or similar to their terrorist partners
 
Last edited:
Fair enough, Clive. Part of the problem with the article is that he doesn't particularly make clear with what aspect of the North Korean coverage he is disagreeing with.

With regards nuclear weapons, in order for any leadership to regard death and destruction as a 'noble cause', I find it highly unlikely. It's very easy for a transnational terrorist organisation to engage in that sort of behaviour, as they don't - by definition - face the same threat of total extinction as a sovereign. If a sovereign state were to launch a nuclear weapon, their leaders would have to be not only irrational, but entirely suicidal given the consequences. Nuclear weapons provide an absolute deterrent, but - in the absence of a leader with a head full of acid or something along those lines - are not a particularly offensive weapon.

I think the two holes in the argument are potentially:

a) an extremist organisation somehow obtains a nuclear weapon. I find it hard to fathom why North Korea, Iran, or any other country would dole out a nuclear weapon given that if a terrorist organisation were to launch it, the consequences would probably be just as catastrophic as if the sovereign themselves had launched it. If Hezbollah managed to launch a nuclear device against Israel, the consequences for Iran would be dire.

b) a leadership change/power struggle/coup. A significant concern in apparently 'unstable' nuclear armed states (eg Pakistan, North Korea). To some extent these risks are inherent in nuclear states I suppose (which isn't a particularly strong defense, but is outweighed by the deterrent aspect of nuclear weapons). In any case, prospects for non-proliferation are extremely limited at this stage; in my view at least it's undesirable, impossible, and potentially destabilising.

Been a while since I thought seriously about this sort of stuff, but it's fascinating nonetheless.
 
Last edited:
A sovereign state under Bin laden would certainly launch a weapon. He has no concern at all about the consequences and would see it as the ultimate martyrdom

Afganistan was intended to be that state

Iran could easily supply an organsiation that may use a limited device and then completely deny responsibility with the UN and various wishy washy states backing them. You dont think the jews and americans are going to get much backing if attacked in such a way do you?

Nuclear devices are not just launched by missiles.
Proliferation is extremely dangerous. You simply cannot assume that all holders of these weapopns wil always bé rational especially if they are domianted by a branch of a "religion" that strongly believes in genocide and martyrdom
 
Last edited:
Yes. Should have used past tense of course and refered to his paedo child executinbg side kick
 
I thought the article was fine until this, the final paragraph, and here it is only the first sentence which poses a problem:

Whatever your view on the actions of North and South Korea's governments, the hypocrisy of using one-sided journalism to label North Korea a rogue, propaganda-led state is surely self-evident and fans the fire of intolerance and animosity. The Korean divide is a complex, multi-faceted political situation. Nobody benefits from turning it into a moral melodrama and we should demand more from our supposedly impartial media.
Click to expand...


Trackside's first post is very sensible:

I didn't read the comments after the article (never do) and I have never heard of the guy that wrote the article.

He seems to have left out some critical information (most notably that the RFU is a heavily left-leaning organisation that enjoys little mainstream support in South Korea) and I agree with you that the slant is predictably one-sided. That said, the two incidents he cited later in the article (the 2010 Yeonpyeong attack and the sinking of the Cheonan) are largely accurate (though to say it wasn't widely reported that SK had been conducting tests is wide of the mark).

I think a more accurate and wider criticism of media coverage of 'rogue' nations like North Korea and Iran is that they are often assumed to be inherently unstable, or their leaders irrational, when there is extremely limited evidence that this is actually the case (and significant evidence that it is not). The regimes themselves are certainly worthy of criticism, but they aren't utter lunatics by any means.
Click to expand...

North Korea is probably the last country on earth I would choose to live in and its culture of choreographed everything, from military marching to public weeping and wailing, seems utterly alien, but the author is right to say we are entitled to more sophisticated analysis than we currently receive. Mind you the North Korean regime's exclusion of foreign media is partly to blame for this.
 
Article is fine?

It is complete garbage. what about this?

In fact it is almost impossible to find any piece of positive European journalism relating to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK).
Click to expand...

Well perhaps the prat author would like to tell us what they are missing because buggered if anyone knows. and he seems a bit short of suggestions doesnt he? Or he dare not say what he really thinks...

Doesnt occur to anyone that letting in journalists (even Guardian ones) is for a very good reason? Dont recall pol pot having press conferences to promote his wonderful plans

Luke is right in so far that it is shameful for anyone to apologise for a state with probably the worst human rights in the world

the only good thing about the article are the comments that follow. Almost 100% ritual slaughter. even readers of that paper couldnt stomach this crap
 
Last edited:
The article itself is a joke, Clive.

My general point (apart from the nuclear weapons tangent) was that any serious analysis of foreign policy should make a distinction between a leader's murderous, sadistic tendencies within their own state and the threat they may or may not pose to the region/world. Drawing a line straight from domestic horrors to assuming that the leader is an irrational lunatic is overly simplistic and, in the vast majority of cases, simply wrong.
 
The lack of western sources in North Korea has allowed the media to conjure up fantastic stories that enthrall readers but aren't grounded in hard fact.
Click to expand...

How does that read? That criticism of Nk is all fantasy? "conjured up" ? Perhaps he would like to explain that to the few that have escaped that horrendous state
 
Well i can agree with that Trackside. But given that there has been quite a lot less fuss about Nks nuclear ambitions that Irans, then maybe the media and the west has the right perspective here?

Yes. there has been and is very little indication that they would even consider attacking south korea and would be seriously bonkers to invade China
 
Last edited:
Quote:
"The lack of western sources in North Korea has allowed the media to conjure up fantastic stories that enthrall readers but aren't grounded in hard fact."

How does that read? That criticism of Nk is all fantasy? "conjured up" ? Perhaps he would like to explain that to the few that have escaped that horrendous state
Click to expand...

Be fair, he goes on to produce two solid examples.

By the way, I too would be more worried about what Iran might do with nuclear weapons than North Korea. Israel would come a close second behind Iran, and then the US, but maybe those two should be bracketed together.
 
Last edited:
I don't think there is much doubt that North Korea is in possession of nuclear weapons at this stage (and has been for the best part of ten years).

With regards to Iran, South Korea may be vehemently - and justifiably - hostile towards North Korea, but they certainly don't possess the clout with the US that Israel does; the bipartisan stranglehold the Israeli lobby (particularly AIPAC) has on US politics is incredible. As far as I can see, the stand-off with Iran is being driven, for right or for wrong, almost entirely by Israeli fears.
 
Last edited:
Isreal and the US doesnt supply and support terrorists who believe its "gods will" to eradicate certain races or followers of religions

there is a huge gap in the risk, especially since a limited device which could render areas uninhabitable for decades could easily be produced
 
no its not Trackside

Thats rubbish. its also driven by the other states in the region who do not want to see a state they generally dislike have a nuclear resource, not least Saudi arabia (as wikileaks proved)

Its also "driven" by fears of other countries in the west who certainly do not trust this states security (its bad enough worrying about Pakistan).

oh and Turkey too
Turkey is determined to prevent Iran from possessing a nuclear weapon, Namik Tan, Turkey's ambassador to the US, said Thursday. It intercepted materials Iran might have used to advance its nuclear program, he says.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Back
Top