South Korea Concludes North Korea Sank Its Warship, Chosun Says

[IScreamSundays]

Source: Bloomberg

May 7 (Bloomberg) -- South Korea has concluded North Korea sank one of its warships near the disputed border between the countries after collecting “definitive circumstantial evidence,” Chosun Ilbo newspaper reported.

South Korea tracked movements of a North Korean submarine that is likely to have attacked the 1,200-ton Cheonan on March 26, killing 46 sailors, the Korean-language report said, citing South Korean officials it didn’t identify. Results of the investigation may be announced around May 20 and a U.S. State Department official may visit South Korea to announce joint responses, Chosun said.

South Korea’s National Intelligence Service, Defense Ministry and presidential office were unable to immediately comment on the report.

snip>

Read more: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601101&sid=a7RSghXpRaoM

[neverforget]

1. Nothing like an act of war between 2 countries that are technically still at war.

[Pavulon]

2. Time to see what china does? Does a nork sub hit with a mk50

make a sound? China is the key here, if they walk away the north will die on the vine.

[nyy1998]

7. China-NK relations have been strained for years

The only thing that's stopping China from totally cutting off NK is the fact that they don't want more American/Western influence in the Korean peninsula.

[ConcernedCanuk]

8. you got it

.
.
.

AND

China WILL make sure that the American/Western influence does not encroach on their territory.

China is not blind to the USA's invasions in the Middle East

China will NOT let NK fail

Heaven help us if China get's aggressive

USA could kill a billion Chinese

they'd STILL have more than the USA

USA had a hard time just slaughtering a million Iraqis . .

:freak:

[Old Troop]

14. Actually the Chinese are terrified of millions of Nork refugees

if the regime falls. SK feels the same way. It would make the East-West German reunification look like a walk in the park.

[conspirator]

3. Nort Korea: Yeah what you gonna do about it. We have nukes nt

[Pavulon]

4. See if they have the balls to use them?

thats one option. Get china to cut them off, and choke them. they may have weapon, may not.

[Arctic Dave]

5. “definitive circumstantial evidence,”

?

[Strelnikov_]

6. Yea, no shit

Reminds me of the doublespeak generator I picked on a Corps project years ago. Three columns of words, pick one word randomly from each column, and it would generate bullshit phrases like this.

[tuckessee]

10. Probablty as "definitive" as the evidence proving that Spain blew up the USS Maine. n/t

[howaboutme]

12. Axis of Evil - one down, two to go

What better way to keep the "Axis of Evil" (Iraq, Iran and N Korea) in the limelight than being blamed for an unprovoked sinking of a ship used for training. Iraq has been dispensed with but at huge cost and definitely not for our benefit.

Will it happen in the Persian gulf? Don't forget the Operation Northwoods and more importantly the USS Liberty because the latter actually occurred, and had it not been for an heroic crew that somehow sent radio distress messages describing the attackers and a Russian sub recording the event, we might have attacked Egypt. http://www.gtr5.com/Reports.htm

The biggest false flag question of all is - were we given the convenient truth about 9-11, or were there other actors involved? That event has been instrumental in drawing us into multiple wars, that have done immense harm to our nation with no signs whatsoever of abating. There were beneficiaries of 9-11 and America and we Americans were not one.

There is always interest by some to keep world events stirred up, because it keeps interest in war instead of peace, and promotes arms and defense spending and power.

With the USS Maine, and all potential similar incendiary events, the question that needs addressed first must be about motive, and who will actually benefit in the end, and not jump to conclusions and blame the obvious perp. Did the leaders of Spain benefit from the USS Maine sinking? They lost the war and much land including Philippines, Puerto Rico, Cuba, Virgin Islands, etc. That they would lose the war was a given. So why would they sink our ship?

Or was this a USA capitalist imperialist foray as stated on the monument to the USS Maine in Cuba "victims sacrificed to the imperialist greed in its fervor to seize control of Cuba", which "alludes to the theory that U.S. agents deliberately blew up their own ship to create a pretext for declaring war on Spain". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Maine_(ACR-1)

Sorry I don't trust governments and their collusive interests.

[howaboutme]

9. We need major cynicsm

I no longer trust the media and governments to give us unbiased honesty on events that are supposed acts of war. We need strong evidence and an open publication of the proceedings, and not as reported by the media.

False flags have been used regularly and throughout history to gain leverage and public opinion, even if it meant sacrificing the country's innocent people, or its own military.

[Posteritatis]

11. I don't quite think South Korea's stupid enough to fabricate a new shooting war here. (nt)

[howaboutme]

13. Does it have to be either S Korea or N Korea?

There are always countries who have the motive and would enjoy sitting on the sidelines while others go at it. War profiteering helps economies and is very big business to major arms exporters.

[Posteritatis]

15. The US isn't quite that stupid either. (nt)

[pampango]

16. NY Times: analysis: Mr. Kim ordered the sinking of the ship to help secure the succession of son.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/23/world/asia/23korea.html?scp=2&sq=north%20korea&st=cse

A new American intelligence analysis of a deadly torpedo attack on a South Korean warship concludes that Kim Jong-il, the ailing leader of North Korea, must have authorized the torpedo assault, according to senior American officials who cautioned that the assessment was based on their sense of the political dynamics there rather than hard evidence.

The officials said they were increasingly convinced that Mr. Kim ordered the sinking of the ship, the Cheonan, to help secure the succession of his youngest son.

So far, at least in public, both American and South Korean leaders have been careful never to link Mr. Kim to the sinking of the Cheonan in March, which killed 46 sailors. Officials said that was in part because of the absence of hard evidence — difficult to come by in the rigidly controlled North — but also largely because both countries were trying to avoid playing into Mr. Kim’s hands by casting one of the worst attacks since the 1953 armistice as another piece of lore about the Kim family taking on South Korea and the West.

The North’s state propaganda surrounding that imagery has been used by the Kim family to sustain two generations of leaders since the end of World War II. Under the leading theory of the American intelligence agencies, Mr. Kim ordered the attack to re-establish both his control and his credentials after a debilitating stroke two years ago, and by extension reinforcing his right to name his son Kim Jong-un as his successor.