"There have been frequent naval clashes around the Northern Limit Line, indeed it seems likely that it has been preserved by the current ROK and US authorities for that purpose. President Roh moo-hyun and Chairman Kim Jong Il, at their summit on 4 October 2007 agreed to a ‘special peace and cooperation zone in the West Sea’, but this peace initiative was overturned, as so many others, by incoming president Lee Myung-bak."
"If Seoul were really interested in peace, you would think it would carry out its military drills in a less sensitive area." “It is appalling,” says Korea expert Leonid Petrov. “If it was a bona fide need for artillery practice they have plenty of islands in the Western sea. This is simply sending a message that the South is putting pressure on the North.”
"south Korean marines had fired live artillery into waters that, according to international customary law, belong to north Korea. Seoul, however, claims the waters as its own based on a sea border drawn unilaterally by the US military in 1953. Hardly unprovoked, the north Korean retaliation was triggered by the south Korean violation of north Korean territorial waters. Moreover, the artillery exchange between the two Koreas coincided with south Korean manoeuvres involving 70,000 ROK troops backed by US Marines. Pyongyang saw the exercises as a rehearsal for an invasion, not an unreasonable inference given the number of troops involved and Lee’s overt hostility to the DPRK."
"The sea border that has become the main battleground between North and South Korea 57 years after it was imposed by a U.S. general has been called legally indefensible by American officials for more than three decades.
Then-Secretary of State Henry Kissinger wrote in a 1975 classified cable that the unilaterally drawn Northern Limit Line was “clearly contrary to international law.” Two years before, the American ambassador said in another cable that many nations would view South Korea and its U.S. ally as “in the wrong” if clashes occurred in disputed areas along the boundary."
Added the following comment to this article Korean Brinkmanship, American Provocation, and the Road to War: the manufacturing of a crisis by Tim Beal (which I liked to in my previous video): Great article, I've been telling people to read it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUxI0wXLBJg I want to add that as far as the location of the civilians killed, the claim that the "two civilian contractors working on a military base" is supported by Kim Chi-joong, the brother of one of the civilians, "They were killed while engaging in construction work inside the military base. On top of industrial disaster benefits, the government should recognize them as those who sacrificed their lives for the country and others." http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2010/12/117_77317.html Also, yes, North Korea may have been trying to fire into the water since that is what it did in response to a similar situation. On 8/9/10, North Korea fired about 110 artillery rounds off the coast of South Korea's Baengnyeong and Yeonpyeong islands. "Roughly 110 artillery rounds fired off by North Korea in the direction of the West Sea Northern Limit Line (NLL) on Monday afternoon, about 10 crossed the NLL and fell in the waters of Baengnyeong Island." "The Joint Chiefs of Staff, based on testimony from soldiers on patrol and analysis by relevant departments, concluded that about 10 shells fell in the waters off Baengnyeong Island, about one or two kilometers south of the NLL. It said that all 100 shells that fell in the waters off Yeonpyeong Island fell north of the NLL." "The Joint Chiefs official said, “Confirmation of the point of impact comes from splash the shells make as they hit the water, but as the waters of Baengnyeong Islands were experiencing 2.5m waves at the time, it was difficult to conclude that the shells crossed the NLL based on soldiers’ visual observations alone." http://www.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_northkorea/434543.html Please send this link to everyone you can: http://TinyURL.com/NoKoreanWar
Comments posted to this video in response to "prayfortruejustice" who claims that I " ignore all science and change the topic to misdirect any immutable facts about the 9/11 events":
WHAT "science?" WHAT "science?" I have repeatedly posted points of fact, all you have done is post notions with nothing to back it up at all. Before we even get into "science" can we start with basic logic and agree that scientific principles apply to all the buildings where steel and fire are concerned? Can we at least agree on that?
If we can agree that scientific principles apply to all the buildings where steel and fire are concerned then the theory pushed by Steven Jones, Alex Jones, Richard Gage, Mike Rivero and others has a serious flaw because steel has weakened to the point of failing due to fire in other buildings. And as pointed out in my first video uploaded to Youtube, we can see that progressive failure of the steel columns well before the collapses. This is a fact these men are ignorant of.
And that fact should not come as a surprise to people who have taken the time to educate themselves on the subject. THE BASIC FACT that steel can be weakened by fire has been understood for a long time (its the reason they spray fireproofing onto steel for example) and I have shown how this fact had been discussed years before 9/11.
Here is my reply to degeneratgambler, I sent this comment:
You didn't or couldn't dispute the facts I went to the trouble of posting over at my blog. WTC7 sure as hell didn't SOUND like a controlled demolition did it? (because in CD we hear multiple explosions, with WTC7, right before it collapses we DON'T hear multiple explosions.) I hear one low rumble (probably an internal failure of the steel column) and it didn't look like one since CD buildings don't show signs of structural failure well before they collapse. Firemen expected it to collapse due to its condition. Read hat they have to say: WTC 7 was severely damaged on the south side of the building and was on fire for about 7 hours.
Korea Correction Some Internet sites are claiming that because CNN's Stan Grant is reporting from onboard the USS George Washington it must mean something. They make this claim on their concocted notion that CNN reporters don't accompany training exercises. The fact that CNN reporter Kyung Lah was aboard the USS George Washington reporting on training exercises debunks their claim. And more, see video!