The Sinking of the Cheonan: We Are Being Lied To

[ensho]

http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2010/05/24/the-sinking-of-the-cheonan-we-are-being-lied-to/


-snip-

The Growing Body Of Evidence

Clinton told reporters the evidence announced Thursday that North Korea sank the Cheonan “is overwhelming and condemning.”

… Daniel Pinkston, a North Korea expert with the International Crisis Group, a multinational not-for-profit organization, said Friday that evidence that North Korea caused the sinking is “pretty irrefutable.” Stars and Stripes

-snip-

So lets take a look at all the “overwhelming” and “irrefutable” evidence. 1. Someone wrote “number 1.” on one single piece of the salvaged torpedo… 2. they claim the torpedo remains are a “perfect match” of a North Korean type of weapon, a “CHT-02D” torpedo. This conclusion was reached via an international research team from US, the UK, Australia, and Sweden. Here is their May 20th, 2010 report. In the report, they make the following conclusion;

The torpedo parts recovered at the site of the explosion by a dredging ship on May 15th, which include the 5×5 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 “1번(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.

… 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. Investigation on the Sinking of the Cheonan

That’s it. That’s all their “evidence” that the international investigators presented in their UNSIGNED report. That’s right, no one knows who the “investigators” were since they didn’t take the time to sign their work.

-long snip explaining and detailing the "evidence" as being wrong. with photos, etc.-

Conclusion

It is clear that we are being lied to and manipulated into believing that North Korea is behind the sinking of the South Korean vessel, the Cheonan. It is impossible to draw conclusions at this time as to who is responsible but we can conclude based on the evidence, that the official story is yet another lie being pawned off on the American people. This lie is obvious and could be used to instigate military action against the people of North Korea.
--------------------------

I don't know diddly about torpedos, etc. to even comment.

but thought this article should be posted

and I do wonder why the US seems to want to ramp up going to war talk

[Larkspur]

1. War is good for business

[G_j]

2. we are always being lied to

every day, every way

[NYC_SKP]

3. I don't know. What are the alternative explanations?

Differences between the actual remains of the torpedo and the diagrams seem to be primary pieces of the theory that the torpedoes are not Korean, but diagrams are often inaccurate representations, sometimes purposefully to protect intellectual property or classified details.

The blog seems to be a little tinfoil-hatty to me.

:shrug:

If not North Korea, then whom?

:tinfoilhat:

[rfranklin]

6. It was actually North Vietnam and it happened...

in the Gulf of Tonkin...or it was the U.S.S. Maine in Havana harbor or something....

[zipplewrath]

4. The only real leap

is that a NK torpedo, that was actively being marketed to other countries, could only have been fired from a NK source. Anyone they sold them to could have fired it. However, I don't see any list of those countries or any reasons they would fire such a thing. The whole "german steel" thing is a canard near as I can tell. Steel is sold around the world and can go through multiple resellers. That german produced steel would end up in a NK construction doesn't particularly surprise me. Again, it MIGHT be evidence that someone else is producing NK type torpedoes.

Now, a legitimate concern here is that there are forces, inside or outside of NK, that want to see this area move towards conflict. There are a few possible candidates, and some of them would be nongovernmental sources.

[unhappycamper]

5. For some tinfoilly reason this reminds me of the Gulf of Tonkin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Resolution

[EFerrari]

7. Why is it that our government always has irrefutable evidence

of crimes committed by N. Korea, Iran and Venezuela but people like Bush and Cheney or AIG or BP or Goldman Sachs confess on national teevee and we have to appoint a committee to investigate for years?

[daleo]

19. That's the best question yet.

Standards of evidence vary so much, and so conveniently.

[naaman fletcher]

8. oh come on...

We could have gone to war with NK any time in the last 50 years. Why now? There is no reason. A ship blew up by a North Korean torpedo right by the North Korean border.

Has it occurred to anyone that war is good for business and politics for our enemies also? Why is it always assumed that only the U.S. wags the dog?

[rfranklin]

9. Because we have a monster war machine to utilize...

and we have to start wars to use it so we can build replacements.

[naaman fletcher]

11. You don't think North Korea

might have the same motivation?

[dionysus]

16. in this case, total woo

[SidDithers]

10. That's an interesting source you've got there...

I particularly "liked" the "Fuck Obama" category.

Sid

[Swede]

14. Lots of 911 conspiracy articles,too.

Just sayin'

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

20. Consider the OP.

[Confusious]

12. Tinfoil hat time

Has it occurred to anyone that china protects north korea, and if we go to war with them, we have to go to war with china.

North Korea also has no oil. What's to gain? We're already spending massive cash in afghan and iraq. There's no more money to spare.

Sometimes you are lied to, sometimes you lie to yourself.

[NeedleCast]

13. Seems pretty obvious it was a NK torpedo

Thing is that the most plausible expanation is usually the true one. In this case, its the most plausible explanation because all the others begin to stretch the boundries of creditability pretty fast.

[greencharlie]

15. maybe the torpedo

was fired by one of the Iraqi WMD Trailers that Colin Powell described in front of the UN...

in all seriousness, of course it was a NK torpedo...

[CanonRay]

17. What possible motive could our government have for lying

in this case. Not to say they'd never lie, but we have two wars we can't pay for now, an oil gusher we can't fix. And a war in Korea would be a bloodbath. Do you really think we'd deliberately get into this? Talk about nuts. :crazy:

[arcane1]

18. I'm still looking for a motive

Why would NK sink a SK ship and then deny doing so? To what end?

[ChairmanAgnostic]

22. to think that NK is monolithic is a mistake

their people are starving. Could this be a way to demand negotiations for trade, food, nukes, etc? Or could it be that some pro-war segment within NK is pushing for war?

[MicaelS]

23. Revenge / Retaliation ....

For North Korea’s defeat in a November 09, 2009 naval clash with South Korea.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8351738.stm

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/11/world/asia/11korea.html?_r=1

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/11/09/koreas.naval.clash/index.html

http://www.historyguy.com/korean_naval_battle_2009.htm

On November 09, 2009, a North Korean naval vessel entered South Korean waters, refused to return to the North, and then was brought under fire by the South Korean navy. The North Korean ship was partially destroyed, and managed to escape back across the Naval Limit Line, which is the sea-border between the Koreas. Perhaps not coincidentally, the Northern incursion came only days before U.S. President Barack Obama was due to visite East Asia. It is common for the Pyongyang regime to seek attention from the U.S. and from the world as a whole in order to put it's own agenda on the table and to force other nations to deal with North Korea.

The naval battle took place near the South Korean-held island of Daecheong-do, 125 miles west of the South Korean capital of Seoul. The island is located ja mere 18 miles from the North Korean coast. North Korea reported one sailor died in the clash while three others were wounded.

Timeline: a history of clashes between North and South Korea

January 21, 1968: North Korean commandos stage a raid on the presidential Blue House in Seoul in an attempt to assassinate President Park Chung-Hee. They are stopped just 800 metres away. All 32 are killed or captured in subsequent days.

August 15, 1974: North Korean agent fires at Park during a speech. He misses but the shot kills the president's wife. Park continues his speech.

October 9, 1983: The North's agents blow up a landmark in Burma (now Myanmar) just before the visiting South Korean President Chun Hoo-Hwan is set to arrive. Four South Korean cabinet ministers and 16 others are killed.

November 29, 1987: All 115 people on board are killed when a bomb planted by the North's agents explodes on a South Korean airliner.

September 1996: A North Korean submarine lands commandos on the South Korean coast, prompting a huge manhunt. Twenty-four infiltrators are shot dead including 11 by their own hand, one is captured and one unaccounted for.

June 15, 1999: A clash breaks out along the disputed border in the Yellow Sea, the first naval battle since the Korean War. A North Korean boat with an estimated 20 sailors aboard is sunk.

June 29, 2002: A South Korean ship is sunk and six sailors killed in another Yellow Sea clash, while Seoul is co-hosting the football World Cup. An estimated 13 North Koreans die.

November 10, 2009: The navies of the two sides exchange fire near the disputed Yellow Sea border. Seoul officials say the South suffered no casualties while the North's boat was damaged.

[daleo]

21. Reasons the U.S. or South Korea might want a war

1 - It could destabilize China, it certainly it puts them in a no-win situation (defend a dysfunctional ally or look weak to the world).
2 - North Korea looks beatable, at least that's what all sorts of posters are saying (30 year old aircraft, lack of morale, starving military, etc).
3 - A massive labor pool exists in North Korea, that could be exploited by South Korean and/or American corporations (might work for pennies per hour) after a successful war.
4 - An arms supplier to anti-U.S. regimes (i.e. Iran) is removed from the scene.
5- Plenty of money to be made re-stocking arms arsenals once the war is over.
6 - Proof of U.S. military might is the ultimate support for the dollar (i.e. the oft repeated "flight to security").

Against these reasons are:
1 - Destabilizing China might not be a great idea.
2 - North Korea could be a tough fight.
3 - The North Korean population might be difficult to control (i.e. insurgency) even if they are beaten.
4 - Multiple nuclear powers could become involved, which is inherently dangerous.
5 - A war would run up the U.S. and South Korean deficits.

Overall, it seems to me that even a successful war would be a bad idea, but it could work out well for some groups (e.g. arms suppliers, long term middle east strategy), so you never know.

[MicaelS]

24. Given the history of NK provocations

Against SK, the US and the World, the fact that a peace treaty has never been signed, and that a state of war still exist on that peninsula, I find your suggestion laughable.

If the word Warmonger ever applied to a Country and its leadership, it applies to North Korea and the Kims.

See my post #23 in this thread.

[Greyhound]

25. We want to be lied to, that's what we pay them for.

When a person tries to tell us the truth, we ostracize them at best, kill them at worst (see Jimmy Carter).