|
On November 23 2010 16:54 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2010 16:51 NokCha wrote: Watching the tv right now(MBC Live) and they are reporting that NK is preparing for another attack. yeah, i don't think so -.- mobilizing maybe, but i dont think theyd attack again Highly unlikely. If they were to attack it would make much more sense to deal a swift blow to the mainland, instead of fire a few shells at a relatively lowly populated islan.d
|
On November 23 2010 16:57 blackh3d wrote: on a more serious note, does this mean a recall for all south korean NSmen (or similar) ? yeah, instant recall for all those living abroad, drafted for those within a certain age range. I believe N Korean men would also be called up to serve their country; they're all unofficially reserves I believe.
|
On November 23 2010 16:56 Marcury wrote:Streamer is changing channels, wait for it to load
ok thanks man
|
On November 23 2010 16:54 PanN wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2010 16:52 ddrddrddrddr wrote:http://www.theastralworld.com/prophecies/babavanga.phpWho else is scared right now? 2010: World War 3 begins in November 2010. Starting as a regular war, it will progress to a nuclear and chemical war. Vanga says the war will be finished by October 2014. War isn't supposed to just happen nowadays right? I have a brain and don't believe in psychic bullshit therefore I do not become afraid because some crazy person said I should be.
This. Well said.
|
On November 23 2010 16:47 okajunior wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2010 16:45 Scrapiron wrote:On November 23 2010 16:41 okajunior wrote:On November 23 2010 16:40 furymonkey wrote:On November 23 2010 16:38 okajunior wrote: 1 confirmed casualty. This is not looking good
You meant death, the word casualty includes injuired. no casualty also implies death I believe. You are wrong. um.... I don't want to really get into this right now so now please stfu http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/casualty noun, plural -ties. 1. Military . a. a member of the armed forces lost to service through death, wounds, sickness, capture, or because his or her whereabouts or condition cannot be determined. b. casualties, loss in numerical strength through any cause, as death, wounds, sickness, capture, or desertion.
|
On November 23 2010 16:57 Subversion wrote: i think south korea needs to be the bigger person here and just chill the fuck out
attacking NK is like poking a rabid dog with a stick so you're saying we should let a rabid dog do whatever it wants? even if it bites someone occasionally? no, you put that thing down.
|
Feels like something along these lines was bound to happen, you can only heat water with fire for so long before it starts to boil. Hopefully they put out the fire before the major countries start getting involved and things escalate...
|
al jazeera's coverage over, just wait for the other stream to load again i guess.
|
United States4053 Posts
|
On November 23 2010 16:58 Scrapiron wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2010 16:47 okajunior wrote:On November 23 2010 16:45 Scrapiron wrote:On November 23 2010 16:41 okajunior wrote:On November 23 2010 16:40 furymonkey wrote:On November 23 2010 16:38 okajunior wrote: 1 confirmed casualty. This is not looking good
You meant death, the word casualty includes injuired. no casualty also implies death I believe. You are wrong. um.... I don't want to really get into this right now so now please stfu http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/casualty noun, plural -ties. 1. Military . a. a member of the armed forces lost to service through death, wounds, sickness, capture, or because his or her whereabouts or condition cannot be determined. b. casualties, loss in numerical strength through any cause, as death, wounds, sickness, capture, or desertion. of course we have a couple of morons arguing about something stupid. stop derailing this thread, this is as serious as it gets
|
|
Okay NK, you flexed your muscles...now please stop.
Having grown up during war I can only say that people thinking it's somehow "interesting" or "entertaining" don't know the first thing about it. It's pure horror. Watching a documentary decades later doesn't even remotely paint the picture of an actual conflict and the hell it brings.
Doesn't matter if you are trying to appear as an internet tough guy or actually believe what you are saying....you are uninformed, insensitive and dead wrong.
|
just quoting this from new york times,
"China expressed concern, Reuters reported, quoting a spokesman for the Chinese Foreign Ministry, Hong Lei, as telling a news conference that both sides of the Korean peninsula should “do more to contribute to peace.”
when nk is firing shells, all china does is push the responsibility to sk and claim "both sides should do more to contribute to peace." how contrived.
|
|
On November 23 2010 16:59 drhojo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2010 16:57 Subversion wrote: i think south korea needs to be the bigger person here and just chill the fuck out
attacking NK is like poking a rabid dog with a stick so you're saying we should let a rabid dog do whatever it wants? even if it bites someone occasionally? no, you put that thing down. right. but countries are not pets. they don't go away when you punish them. see: iraq.
|
konadora
Singapore66071 Posts
|
On November 23 2010 16:58 Froadac wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2010 16:54 travis wrote:On November 23 2010 16:51 NokCha wrote: Watching the tv right now(MBC Live) and they are reporting that NK is preparing for another attack. yeah, i don't think so -.- mobilizing maybe, but i dont think theyd attack again Highly unlikely. If they were to attack it would make much more sense to deal a swift blow to the mainland, instead of fire a few shells at a relatively lowly populated islan.d
I totally agree. They are just trying to tell SK that "Ya we are still here, you still need to be worried."
|
|
al jazeera back up. restreaming on livestream.com/thundertoss
|
konadora
Singapore66071 Posts
wow someone in parliament suggest US give SKorea nukes
|
|
|
|