that states that the South Korean president just declared martial law.
“I will eliminate anti-state forces as quickly as possible and normalize the country,” he said, while asking the people to believe in him and tolerate “some inconveniences.”
Now, despite being on this forum, i am not very well-versed in South Korean politics, but i know that a lot of people here are.
To my uninformed mind, this sounds a lot like a coup. Does someone here know more about what is going on, and can maybe give some better information?
Opposition majority in parliament was preparing impeachment and, probably, criminal case against acting president. He responded with martial law, banning the activity of the parliament and censoring the media.
“I will eliminate anti-state forces as quickly as possible and normalize the country,” he said, while asking the people to believe in him and tolerate “some inconveniences.”
Now, despite being on this forum, i am not very well-versed in South Korean politics, but i know that a lot of people here are.
To my uninformed mind, this sounds a lot like a coup. Does someone here know more about what is going on, and can maybe give some better information?
Firstly, super weird of all the politics threads there isn't one for the ROK here.
Secondly from what I've gathered so far (like 10 mins of looking into it) is that he's protecting his and his wife's corruption by accusing his opposition (just libs/dems basically) of being communists.
Biden's nepotism and disregard for international law doesn't just lower the bar for US Democrats, it lowered it for "liberal democracy" around the world.
I'm going to be team nothing ever happens in this case. The parliamentary rules state they can just remove this order by a majority the opposition has. The police have surrounded parliment but aren't stopping lawmakers from entering so they haven't joined a countercoup it seems at this time.
This seems like an extremely dumb thing someone is doing to get attention that will Damm his party for a generation. The opposition is anti Ukraine so that's at least some effect on deveoplements for you when he gets carted out.
Couple things: 1) SK parties are even worse than the US about constantly trying to impeach and throw each other in jail for not covering their nose when sneezing. While some of this is legitimate it's also anathema to functioning democracies to continue like this. The current case is people investigating and trying to impeach investigators.
2) Either he had a psychotic episode or did this out of bare self-interest or desperation. There is a structure for martial law and there are extensive military and government contingencies prepared due to the peninsular state of war, but in this case it seems he has declared martial law while not telling anyone, including the military. It's completely random and while complaints from both parties against each other are definitely warranted, the justification given is mostly rhetorical excuse.
Rather than Netanyahu the closest analogue I can imagine is Turkey 10 years ago, although the direction is wrong (the army trying to coup against a dictator in that case), the "scale" is similar, with so far less violence than that.
3) Seems he thought declaring martial law late at night was some kind of cheat code where you could make undoing martial law (a power held by parliament) illegal. But even his own party is not impressed.
On December 04 2024 00:39 GreenHorizons wrote: Biden's nepotism and disregard for international law doesn't just lower the bar for US Democrats, it lowered it for "liberal democracy" around the world.
Okay, interesting. So the question now is if the military and police agree with parliament or with the president? And it appears that they lawfully should side with parliament?
Okay, first question - why is everyone in the world going nuts in the 20s, second - how it's even possible that South Korean politicians are that dumb to plunge the country in possible civil war in the peak of North Korea going nuts.
Okay, interesting. So the question now is if the military and police agree with parliament or with the president? And it appears that they lawfully should side with parliament?
This looks like a pretty weird thing alltogether.
Should mention there are 300 members so 190 was unanimous of those in attendance (and a sufficient majority regardless afaict) but didn't include all of parliament.
Yeah, it would seem they should side with parliament. I'd have no confidence in Democrats+ Show Spoiler +
(to even muster into congress for such a vote tbh)
/police/military if or when Trump does something like this, but I don't have that kind of familiarity with those factions in SK.
On December 04 2024 01:36 hitthat wrote: Okay, first question - why is everyone in the world going nuts in the 20s
In representative democracies politics have a direction, the world either goes to the left or to the right. When the world goes more towards the left things make more and more sense, when the world goes more towards the right things make less and less sense.
Currently the world goes more toward the right because liberals have a stranglehold on the electoral system of most of those democracies and because of climate change.
The president was basically on borrowed time, he's already used veto powers more than all previous SK presidents combined for all sorts of stupid reasons including proposals to investigate corruption of his inner circle etc. He also went on a pretty ridiculous rant about liberals and communist NK sympathizers trying to destroy our country in the TV address he made when declaring martial law -- maybe a desperate last ditch attempt to rally what little conservative support he had or something? -- anyway, military made a token effort in keeping the national congress building closed but this was realistically never going to amount to much. He'll probably be in jail before Christmas, which will make a nice New Years present for everyone because he's an incompetent corrupt asshole.
As for the comment about America making everything worse... honestly, I think there's at least some truth to that. I don't think it's a coincide that our politics are steadily degenerating into stupid us vs them between the two major parties at a time when the US dems vs reps tensions are the highest they've ever been; a lot of Koreans look up to Americans and imitate them, knowingly or otherwise. A lot of current popular issues are basically echoes of bullshit that's happening in the US, too, stuff that was never a real problem in Korea until recently.
For me, the economic situation in the country is a bigger concern than the clown that's currently in charge, at any rate. Our currency is dropping precariously at a time when overall economy is shaky as it is; inflation was and still is an issue but at the same time real estate is in a huge bubble with half the country leveraged up to their eyeballs, not only residential but also super expensive fancy conglomerate towers are at risk; one of the biggest corporations recently put up their pride and joy HQ building as collateral for their loans which is a huge alarm bell in its own right, banks are basically rejecting loans for all but the 'safest' of property purchases, meanwhile Samsung and LG profits are shit but they're like half our economy so the budget deficits just keep growing. It's not pretty, and nobody has any real solutions in mind.
Yeah the part where the president accused the other side of being NK sympathizers immediately made me suspect this whole thing is a gross misuse of power.
On December 04 2024 01:53 Salazarz wrote: The president was basically on borrowed time, he's already used veto powers more than all previous SK presidents combined for all sorts of stupid reasons including proposals to investigate corruption of his inner circle etc. He also went on a pretty ridiculous rant about liberals and communist NK sympathizers trying to destroy our country in the TV address he made when declaring martial law -- maybe a desperate last ditch attempt to rally what little conservative support he had or something? -- anyway, military made a token effort in keeping the national congress building closed but this was realistically never going to amount to much. He'll probably be in jail before Christmas, which will make a nice New Years present for everyone because he's an incompetent corrupt asshole.
As for the comment about America making everything worse... honestly, I think there's at least some truth to that. I don't think it's a coincide that our politics are steadily degenerating into stupid us vs them between the two major parties at a time when the US dems vs reps tensions are the highest they've ever been; a lot of Koreans look up to Americans and imitate them, knowingly or otherwise. A lot of current popular issues are basically echoes of bullshit that's happening in the US, too, stuff that was never a real problem in Korea until recently.
For me, the economic situation in the country is a bigger concern than the clown that's currently in charge, at any rate. Our currency is dropping precariously at a time when overall economy is shaky as it is; inflation was and still is an issue but at the same time real estate is in a huge bubble with half the country leveraged up to their eyeballs, not only residential but also super expensive fancy conglomerate towers are at risk; one of the biggest corporations recently put up their pride and joy HQ building as collateral for their loans which is a huge alarm bell in its own right, banks are basically rejecting loans for all but the 'safest' of property purchases, meanwhile Samsung and LG profits are shit but they're like half our economy so the budget deficits just keep growing. It's not pretty, and nobody has any real solutions in mind.
Thanks a lot for the information and insight!
I am not sure that i would blame americans directly, though. That whole stupidity seems to be a thing that moves across all the world currently. My personal pet theory is that we are just all really, really bad at dealing with social media.
On December 04 2024 01:53 Salazarz wrote: The president was basically on borrowed time, he's already used veto powers more than all previous SK presidents combined for all sorts of stupid reasons including proposals to investigate corruption of his inner circle etc. He also went on a pretty ridiculous rant about liberals and communist NK sympathizers trying to destroy our country in the TV address he made when declaring martial law -- maybe a desperate last ditch attempt to rally what little conservative support he had or something? -- anyway, military made a token effort in keeping the national congress building closed but this was realistically never going to amount to much. He'll probably be in jail before Christmas, which will make a nice New Years present for everyone because he's an incompetent corrupt asshole.
As for the comment about America making everything worse... honestly, I think there's at least some truth to that. I don't think it's a coincide that our politics are steadily degenerating into stupid us vs them between the two major parties at a time when the US dems vs reps tensions are the highest they've ever been; a lot of Koreans look up to Americans and imitate them, knowingly or otherwise. A lot of current popular issues are basically echoes of bullshit that's happening in the US, too, stuff that was never a real problem in Korea until recently.
For me, the economic situation in the country is a bigger concern than the clown that's currently in charge, at any rate. Our currency is dropping precariously at a time when overall economy is shaky as it is; inflation was and still is an issue but at the same time real estate is in a huge bubble with half the country leveraged up to their eyeballs, not only residential but also super expensive fancy conglomerate towers are at risk; one of the biggest corporations recently put up their pride and joy HQ building as collateral for their loans which is a huge alarm bell in its own right, banks are basically rejecting loans for all but the 'safest' of property purchases, meanwhile Samsung and LG profits are shit but they're like half our economy so the budget deficits just keep growing. It's not pretty, and nobody has any real solutions in mind.
Thanks a lot for the information and insight!
I am not sure that i would blame americans directly, though. That whole stupidity seems to be a thing that moves across all the world currently. My personal pet theory is that we are just all really, really bad at dealing with social media.
I don't blame Americans directly, that would be silly -- but as the world's leading superpower, it's only natural that their influence through 'soft power' affects a lot more than just what movies people watch or what brand jeans people wear. And yeah, social media and online echochambers are definitely to blame also.
We've had dumb coup attempts but this one is maybe the dumbest in a western country. It's definitely dumber than jan6th is it dumber than the Brazilian version of jan6th?
The police and military were all on standby but were clearly not informed about what was going on and just stood around while the coup failed, then walked out and went back home. No core of supporters no support from the military, did he even plan this before tonight?
On December 04 2024 01:53 Salazarz wrote: The president was basically on borrowed time, he's already used veto powers more than all previous SK presidents combined for all sorts of stupid reasons including proposals to investigate corruption of his inner circle etc. He also went on a pretty ridiculous rant about liberals and communist NK sympathizers trying to destroy our country in the TV address he made when declaring martial law -- maybe a desperate last ditch attempt to rally what little conservative support he had or something? -- anyway, military made a token effort in keeping the national congress building closed but this was realistically never going to amount to much. He'll probably be in jail before Christmas, which will make a nice New Years present for everyone because he's an incompetent corrupt asshole.
As for the comment about America making everything worse... honestly, I think there's at least some truth to that. I don't think it's a coincide that our politics are steadily degenerating into stupid us vs them between the two major parties at a time when the US dems vs reps tensions are the highest they've ever been; a lot of Koreans look up to Americans and imitate them, knowingly or otherwise. A lot of current popular issues are basically echoes of bullshit that's happening in the US, too, stuff that was never a real problem in Korea until recently.
For me, the economic situation in the country is a bigger concern than the clown that's currently in charge, at any rate. Our currency is dropping precariously at a time when overall economy is shaky as it is; inflation was and still is an issue but at the same time real estate is in a huge bubble with half the country leveraged up to their eyeballs, not only residential but also super expensive fancy conglomerate towers are at risk; one of the biggest corporations recently put up their pride and joy HQ building as collateral for their loans which is a huge alarm bell in its own right, banks are basically rejecting loans for all but the 'safest' of property purchases, meanwhile Samsung and LG profits are shit but they're like half our economy so the budget deficits just keep growing. It's not pretty, and nobody has any real solutions in mind.
I dont think its a US mirror effect. I think it's more a Social media effect. Before social media, people used to drink on practically the same sources of knowledge, or at least, they had a lot of common sources, even when they defended ideological opposite stances. After social media though, people have been looking to the world through completely different lenses, simply because their algoritms direct them so. And more people have become "politically active", since the information bridge has become shorter. Thats why i think that political struggles have become more vicious and volatile, internally, in so many countries.
I would argue that the easy polarization of people into these far right lunatics we see today is only possible because of the failure of society to protect and uplift anyone other than the upper classes.
Comfortable, happy people dont support the drastic uprooting of their society in the way we see happening lately lol
Most normal people are sleeping with their phones off by now, probably including the person who initiated this circumstance. It is normal for the police to secure the area of downtown where they are in many situations, ex. festivals, parades, protests. Remember the capital and most populous city are the same which is not always the case. Like if NY and DC were the same city. At the moment some token moving of police/army assets around and some token protests/more just concerned citizens hanging around at this point. In visible places. Whether secret agents are surreptitiously commandeering media offices or house-arresting absent opposition is anyone's guess. Mostly hoping nobody gets put in a bad powderkeg situation of sleeplessness which could result in tragedy. If there's any logical reason behind this it's as a chess move to make a deal to overcome the split government stalemate. Like whether a luxury bag is legal or not it's not really a hangable offense and the country deserves functionality.
Without going too deep into old wounds about what a "coup is," at the moment there's no coup, but there is a situation, which in very extreme resolutions could become any one of about 4 different coups if those futures happened, but aren't likely. It's not describable a coup inasmuch as someone who doesn't have power is stealing it (ex. the army against the president), and there's also no coup because of the execution. Basically, if you wanted to do a coup, you wouldn't let the people who can oppose and depose you meet, you would have blocked that already. But blocking that before you declare martial law, would (have) be(en) a coup. Also, to begin with, if you even tried to do that, people can't keep secrets, the more people you involve the worse kept secrets are, so it would get out. So maybe we are living in an age where nothing but "spontaneous" coups are feasible due to technological and other advancements making our world smaller and closer, but still even in that interpretation, basically it's not illegal to declare martial law, nor is it illegal to undeclare it. But it has created a grey situation of definite uncertainty.
@ oBlade: there are no covert arrests and no commandeering of media offices, lol. This whole 'coup' is a joke, the president doesn't have the support of anyone outside of some cronies he has personally appointed; he has 'support' of the military insofar as the minister of defense and a bunch of ranking generals are his pals, his popularity with actual boots on the ground is non-existent. Dudes went out to do the lockdowns and such because their bosses told them to, and even then, there were several hundred supposedly armed soldiers holding the National Assembly building on lockdown and the congressmen just shouldered their way past them. If there's a single civilian seriously injured nvm killed by the military in this mess, you can be sure the president's residence will cease to exist within the next 24 hours. There's millions of people in this country who were around when the last military dictatorship was in power, the people will absolutely not stand for a new dictator, especially not a useless dickwad like Yoon. The guy had like 15% approval rating before this order, in a country with a conscripted military that will not get you far.
edit: the act of declaring a martial law in itself is not illegal, but it's supposed to be done at a time of a national emergency which this simply is not. He's also refusing to comply with the unanimous decision by the National Assembly to end the martial law, not to mention all the corruption charges and pending investigations into himself and his minions. He's done for either way, this is just some ridiculous hail mary on the way out.
On December 04 2024 03:37 Biff The Understudy wrote: So, I mean, it’s a coup, with the support of the military, right?
Is this actually clear at the moment (the "support of the military" thing)? Or was it just one guy strongly misjudging the situation?
Seems like a very severe constitutional crisis where the army is actually deciding on who is right and sides with the president obviously misusing a tool of absolute national emergency for his own gain.
That very, very much starts to look like a coup. Democracy suspended by force.
On December 04 2024 03:54 Salazarz wrote: @ oBlade: there are no covert arrests and no commandeering of media offices, lol. This whole 'coup' is a joke, the president doesn't have the support of anyone outside of some cronies he has personally appointed; he has 'support' of the military insofar as the minister of defense and a bunch of ranking generals are his pals, his popularity with actual boots on the ground is non-existent. Dudes went out to do the lockdowns and such because their bosses told them to, and even then, there were several hundred supposedly armed soldiers holding the National Assembly building on lockdown and the congressmen just shouldered their way past them. If there's a single civilian seriously injured nvm killed by the military in this mess, you can be sure the president's residence will cease to exist within the next 24 hours. There's millions of people in this country who were around when the last military dictatorship was in power, the people will absolutely not stand for a new dictator, especially not a useless dickwad like Yoon. The guy had like 15% approval rating before this order, in a country with a conscripted military that will not get you far.
edit: the act of declaring a martial law in itself is not illegal, but it's supposed to be done at a time of a national emergency which this simply is not. He's also refusing to comply with the unanimous decision by the National Assembly to end the martial law, not to mention all the corruption charges and pending investigations into himself and his minions. He's done for either way, this is just some ridiculous hail mary on the way out.
We are not saying it’s a particularly great coup attempt not that it will succeed, just that it does very luch look like a coup attempt.
There are none that you know of but we also aren't with the luxury of personally taking a second by second roll call of thousands of journalists and politicians and marking them all Facebook safe, was my only point.
On December 04 2024 03:56 Biff The Understudy wrote: We are not saying it’s a particularly great coup attempt not that it will succeed, just that it does very luch look like a coup attempt.
You can be saying that but apparently I need to divest myself further from the "we," this is a situation that could become a coup attempt of various sorts but so far has been a huff and a counterpuff.
On December 04 2024 03:57 oBlade wrote: There are none that you know of but we also aren't with the luxury of personally taking a second by second roll call of thousands of journalists and politicians and marking them all Facebook safe, was my only point.
Every major broadcaster in Korea is covering this. If there were secret arrests and media office lockdowns going on, we'd know already.
It doesn't look like a military coup from what I can see. The president declared a state of emergency, which means that the military "protects" the parliament. But according to the law, the parliament has the right to vote if they support the state of emergency or not, so the military just let them do that. I highly doubt that would have been the case if they were trying to take the power for themselves.
Apparently the vote turned out 190-0 against the state of emergency lol.
It's a self coup. He has already lifted the state of emergency so it failed. The wiki article explains it well:
A self-coup, also called an autocoup (from Spanish autogolpe) or coup from the top, is a form of coup d'état in which a political leader, having come to power through legal means, stays in power through illegal means through the actions of themselves and/or their supporters.[1] The leader may dissolve or render powerless the national legislature and unlawfully assume extraordinary powers. Other measures may include annulling the nation's constitution, suspending civil courts, and having the head of government assume dictatorial powers.[2][3]
It seems the president had used military forces to try to control the legislative branch, so it had to be a coup. I will try to find the reputable news source in english for it.
To be honest, I though he is going to declare war on north korea when I saw the news headline that the martial rule being enacted, relieved that is not the case.
The military did enter parliament and the police surrounded the building. The reasons that make me pretty sure that they were not informed about what's going on/weren't supporting the coup attempt are in the videos, although I do encourage others to watch them. First they exist, the military was taping itself while doing things, second no one stopped lawmakers or their staff getting in. A guy livestreamed himself crawling over the barricade believing this was the moment he would become a martyr, everyone on that side recognized him and he just walked into the building. Third when they began moving further into the building they were stopped by staffers blowing a fire extinguisher at them. There is no universe where that stops a soilder hopped up on adrenaline with a gun who's there to save their country from the enemy within. Fourth after the vote everyone leaves. It's the most wild moment of "well I guess it's over" that everyone follows the law and exists. The protestors outside stayed longer than the military. Also the military wasn't fully kitted, you can see a lot of uniforms that don't have that parade style look to them that coup armies have for the media.
I think the military took the word of the president literally that there was a north Korean infiltration and then when confronted with easily verified lawmakers and their staff went "yeah those are the people who are suppose to be here". Then when martial law was lifted they all went home because that's how the law works and they were told this is the law because lawmakers did law thing.
The biggest thing about much more recent coups is the inherent deniability that the perpetrators can keep about the coup until it succeeds. We've got people here now trying to deny what is and isn't a coup because of how much a blender post jan6th has been in the US.
It also weirdly enough gives you a lot of confidence in the resilience of the South Korean democracy and rule of law. It seems that most of the military people will, when in doubt, err in favor of following the law.
It shows you how crucial it is for the military to be apolitical, with control of its own personnel structure to maintain its own values. This is, imo, one of the most important pieces of a resilient democracy.
It's also why an authoritarian party attempting to root-and-branch the military is one of the scariest precursors. All you have left after that is the common-sense of the soldier on the ground, which isn't guaranteed if the proto-dictator has the forethought to station the loyal legions in Rome.
On December 04 2024 01:53 Salazarz wrote: honestly, I think there's at least some truth to that. I don't think it's a coincide that our politics are steadily degenerating into stupid us vs them between the two major parties at a time when the US dems vs reps tensions are the highest they've ever been;
i'd say this is a prisoner of the moment kind of statement. The Dems and Republicans have been each claiming the other is destroying the country since my grandfather was 10 years old and probably before that. Reagan's belief in the Laffer Curve and his Voodoo economics was going to destroy the country. Carter rescinding punishment for deserters was going to destroy the country... Abolishing the draft was going to destroy the country... Having an actor as a President was going to destroy the country...etc etc etc.
The reality is, Reagan's fiscal policy mirrored the policy of left wing PM of Canada Pierre Trudeau. That whole " A Time For Choosing" speech Reagan gave was just BS. So were the speeches the left wing Trudeau gave on the same topics because both pursued nearly identical policies. Both were immensely popular in their respective countries and claimed to be beacons of hope for their respective left-wing and right-wing followers. Their alleged diametrically opposed philosophies resulted in the same policies on both sides. YAWN.
1964: A Time For Choosing Yes , folks, it was 1964 and it was the end of the USA as we know it because the Democrats want out of Vietnam! By the end of that speech I was like "hand me a machine gun and point me at the commies!" LOL.
This messaging serves to keep people distracted from real issues. The real issue is, there is no 3rd party in the USA. The Dems and Republicans are like Coke and Pepsi. They pretend to be enemies. In reality, the Vice President of Coke will leave to work at Pepsi as the President in a nanosecond. Reagan is halted in his rise to the top.. what does he do? He becomes a Republican and becomes President.
And, I'll give the Dems and Republicans credit... their fake "Good Cop// Bad Cop routine" fools hundreds of millions of people.
The token actions yesterday looked basically like people on all sides doing the minimum they thought necessary not to get fired. Unfortunately for Yoon's case this will probably lead to his firing anyway. If it was an attempted power move to level the playing field, end reciprocal investigations, and get the split government working together again, it seems to have failed. The surprise factor is also gone so any outside chance of him actually having worked out specifics and understood loyalty and plans to execute the first time would not work on a second attempt (without jinxing I hope). His staff also want to resign and hang him out to dry so there's not many routes for the same coalition to win the next election, which could be sooner than 2027.
On December 04 2024 22:03 Belisarius wrote: It shows you how crucial it is for the military to be apolitical, with control of its own personnel structure to maintain its own values. This is, imo, one of the most important pieces of a resilient democracy.
It's also why an authoritarian party attempting to root-and-branch the military is one of the scariest precursors. All you have left after that is the common-sense of the soldier on the ground, which isn't guaranteed if the proto-dictator has the forethought to station the loyal legions in Rome.
User name checks out.
That being said I don’t really know how much common sense of the soldiers on the ground matters. They are trained all their life to obey orders. I think the integrity of their hierarchy, and the loyalty of the officers to the principles of democracy is much more important.
On December 04 2024 22:03 Belisarius wrote: It shows you how crucial it is for the military to be apolitical, with control of its own personnel structure to maintain its own values. This is, imo, one of the most important pieces of a resilient democracy.
It's also why an authoritarian party attempting to root-and-branch the military is one of the scariest precursors. All you have left after that is the common-sense of the soldier on the ground, which isn't guaranteed if the proto-dictator has the forethought to station the loyal legions in Rome.
User name checks out.
That being said I don’t really know how much common sense of the soldiers on the ground matters. They are trained all their life to obey orders. I think the integrity of their hierarchy, and the loyalty of the officers to the principles of democracy is much more important.
Every Korean male does the same mandatory service, the number of 'lifer' professional soldiers we have is quite low. Hierarchy and obeying orders are obviously important in the military, but there's also quite a big focus on how Korea was established as a modern state, the struggles with military dictatorships we've had, the purges and the repressions, and how loyalty to individual should never supersede loyalty to the country and its people.
I wish I was at home and could dig into this more but I'm chilling on vacation and I'm collecting information from south Koreans who are also on this cruise.
So shit gets even dumber. Apparently the theory is now that the national assembly troops were a smokescreen for the real reason for martial law. Troops were stationed outside the election commission and when martial law was declared they moved in to seize data and evidence of election fraud from 2020. Big brain theory is that this was a 5d chess move to get the evidence during the few hours martial law was in effect.
But that's fucking stupid. That's hunter's laptop levels of dumb. No one who's serious will accept data or evidence produced from the bayonet. This guy is old enough to be alive during the last martial law and the public fervor of evoking those memories again will cook you for a generation.
They're singing Christmas Carol's outside parliament right now but with lyrics about how they want impeachment for Christmas.
Since the new impeachment vote went through it seems Yoon's visions of golf diplomacy with the incoming US administration will never come to fruition. Internationally the effect of a new election will be the same as 2017 with a good cop/bad cop setup in the Blue House and White House as far as North Korean relations go.
I'm sure many of you have already heard about this tragedy. A plane crashed and 181 people were killed, only 2 survived.
David Learmount argues that this was an entirely preventable disaster. He calls it "criminal", referring to the wall that shouldn't have been obstructing the path. The video is SFW.
Seen a lot of speculation that the airplane pilots made a lot of mistakes as well. There are manual releases for the landing gear as a single example.
The concrete at the end is an issue and should not be there. Without it there would still have been a crash and some amount of people likely die.
Not sure if planes normally land in the direction this plane was forced to take. Somebody mentioned they got approval to land in the opposite direction, not sure if that is common or not though.
I really think the bunker is a red herring. No airport in the world is designed for a plane to skid off the end of a runway on its nacelles at 200 kph. The number of things that had to go wrong for that situation to occur is astronomical.
Sure, the bunker probably shouldn't have been there and it's an easy recommendation for the report, but there's airports all over the world where the same situation would result in not only the same fireball, but the same fireball in the middle of random residential housing. The bunker is not the problem.
Even at this specific airport, if you take the bunker away they get another 1km of no mans land that could easily flip the plane at any time, and then some kind of carpark that would come down on top of them and kill a bunch of bystanders. I'm not convinced that's any better.
The thing that stands out to me is that they don't actually get it grounded until about 2/3 down the runway. Irrespective of the number of systems that must have failed to come down with no flaps, no engines and no gear, the pilots clearly got caught out by the ground effect. When they finally touch with only 1 km left and no power to go around, it's all over.
On January 01 2025 20:35 Belisarius wrote: I really think the bunker is a red herring. No airport in the world is designed for a plane to skid off the end of a runway on its nacelles at 200 kph. The number of things that had to go wrong for that situation to occur is astronomical.
Sure, the bunker probably shouldn't have been there and it's an easy recommendation for the report, but there's airports all over the world where the same situation would result in not only the same fireball, but the same fireball in the middle of random residential housing. The bunker is not the problem.
Even at this specific airport, if you take the bunker away they get another 1km of no mans land that could easily flip the plane at any time, and then some kind of carpark that would come down on top of them and kill a bunch of bystanders. I'm not convinced that's any better.
The thing that stands out to me is that they don't actually get it grounded until about 2/3 down the runway. Irrespective of the number of systems that must have failed to come down with no flaps, no engines and no gear, the pilots clearly got caught out by the ground effect. When they finally touch with only 1 km left and no power to go around, it's all over.
I don't know, I'd rather trust the expert. If he says on camera this is criminal, it most certainly is. I'd trust him that he'd testify in court repeating his words if he was asked. The point isn't that some other airports are even more dangerous (due to various limitations in most instances) but that this particular obstacle serves no point whatsoever being there at all.
Airplanes get grounded for various faults all the time, it happens. You can't prevent every bad landing because there are so many human variables at play where some technician miscommunicated with another and the other one miscommunicated back etc. etc. The work/safety protocols get updated accordingly over time to decrease the likelihood of miscommunication resulting in a bad landing or a crash. But eventually it happens again, and again, and in some of those instances a pointless wall in the middle of the landing can become the final killer, as demonstrated in this case.
On January 01 2025 08:24 Yurie wrote: Seen a lot of speculation that the airplane pilots made a lot of mistakes as well. There are manual releases for the landing gear as a single example.
The concrete at the end is an issue and should not be there. Without it there would still have been a crash and some amount of people likely die.
Not sure if planes normally land in the direction this plane was forced to take. Somebody mentioned they got approval to land in the opposite direction, not sure if that is common or not though.
I believe they landed opposite direction after going around, which was after the bird strike. The right engine very clearly took a big one.
They had gears down for the original landing, but retracted them for going around, also related to performance. Gears can add more drag than we might think. For similar reasons, when they landed they didn't have flaps out, which let you fly slower but need more power from the engines, which could have been in short supply, or of suspect reliability, if one or both engines were hit.
Once you've retracted the gears as they did, if you have a hydraulic problem, then redeploying them when you're urgently doing what could be or what you anyways view as your one chance to land - the manual release takes a bit to get to and they could have been in a severe time crunch, which is suggested by the fact they landed opposite direction after going around instead of rejoining - But if they had normal working hydraulics and just plain forgot to redeploy the gear after having retracted it, then that could be a mistake.
That could possibly manifest in the form of a wake up call like - hey we're 10 feet above the ground and flared, why aren't the gears making contact with the runway - oh shit - better pitch the whole plane down more because we can't go around like this - and then make the initial touch down way too far down the runway especially when you're already faster than normal without flaps.
This is not outside the realm of possibility. The CVR will help with that especially.
They also hadn't deployed speedbrakes after landing, which starts to be an issue because with no gear, no flaps, and no speedbrakes, it becomes difficult to see how the aircraft is supposed to slow itself. While the lack of flaps deployment doesn't directly support having no hydraulics - because you could purposefully land in a no flaps configuration for reasons of engine performance - they DID have thrust reversers deployed. But this is also puzzling if you had a full loss of thrust in one engine, because you would have asymmetric reverse thrust, meaning the plane would only decelerate on the side of the wing with the working engine, leading to a visual kind of cartwheeling that we absolutely didn't see. So either they deployed thrust reversers and didn't use them, or they did deploy thrust reverses and used them, they just couldn't slow the plane in time, in which case the plane didn't cartwheel because both engines were producing thrust symmetrically, in which case... why would we be landing like this to begin with?
We can say "mistake" in hindsight (even though our hindsight is still foggy with regards to this) but the truth is if you have questionable engines and are very close to the ground, doing what needs to happen to get out of the air in the most controlled way possible immediately is going to take priority. So while a belly landing with no speedbrakes is not ideal, it's possibly more ideal than nosediving into a hill.
If you're relying on gear brakes which is why you haven't deployed speedbrakes, only to realize you have no gear when you touch down, that would also be consistent with what happened. So you spend most of your time wondering where your gear went instead of deploying speedbrakes that you weren't prepared for/thinking about, the plane can't stops, and then impact. But a lot of explanations are consistent at this point which will get narrowed down as more evidence comes.
Not to condescend in case this is anything you already knew, but for someone else reading.
I'm in the anti-obstacle camp here. There are things you need to put at airports, like hangars, control towers. But people with good reason locate these things to the sides of runways, not directly in front and behind them.
Have a problem landing at DFW you'll probably be safer in the flatness of the wide open fields and huge spaces than at SFO where you might end up in the water. Not that one is unsafe. But you have no choice in terms of the water being there. You do have a choice whether to put obstacles to runway overshoots or not, it's introducing a problem for no reason. (This is just an example. If someone wants to argue no actually the water is SAFER, fine, then DFW could engineer moats around itself and increase safety, that's not germane to the point.)
Any barrier/protective stance on this is BS - planes can crash literally anywhere they like, you can't wall off the world from crashing planes, and if that were the objective, airports would all be walled off like that. They aren't. Airports have walls mostly to keep people and animals out. In this particular case, it's the ILS. You don't have to put the ILS there, and even if you do, you don't have to fortify it like that. You simply do not. It's not a contingency people thought about because people are stupid. Nevertheless more people are now dead who wouldn't be. Even incidentally it wasn't protecting anything. There's nothing there. Past it is a single brick width cinderblock wall, then a field, then trees. If it were protecting something, the entire boundary of the airport would be similarly fortified to protect in the event of a dangerous plane gone wild. But only the ILS was fortified. Because it's not designed to protect anything but the ILS. Because that means some asshole intentionally designed that one day, he designed an airport with a runway and said I need to put the ILS here, which is fine, but that equipment is expensive, and if an airplane crashes into it we'd prefer not to have to replace it. Better fortify it to protect it. That is the single and only explanation.
The guess I heard for having an overly solid wall there is that it used to a blastoff wall, thus served a purpose. They then redesigned the airport and re-used the wall for a new purpose, which it works for but is now also a safety hazard.
If they did it as a new feature on the current airport setup it is clearly an error. Nobody is arguing that the wall should be there. If it wasn't there the accident would likely have been less lethal. That still doesn't make it the cause of the crash, only a contributing reason for it being so lethal.
On January 03 2025 04:31 Yurie wrote: The guess I heard for having an overly solid wall there is that it used to a blastoff wall, thus served a purpose. They then redesigned the airport and re-used the wall for a new purpose, which it works for but is now also a safety hazard.
If they did it as a new feature on the current airport setup it is clearly an error. Nobody is arguing that the wall should be there. If it wasn't there the accident would likely have been less lethal. That still doesn't make it the cause of the crash, only a contributing reason for it being so lethal.
I think we can agree that the bad landing was caused by a few errors, but it should be clear that it was also a reasonably executed landing given the terrible circumstances. After everything that went wrong they came up with a logical solution and this had a good chance of saving all lives on board. The wall is the only thing that made survival literally impossible. Without it, perhaps a dozen people die, maybe a few dozen people die, but 181 people likely wouldn't die.
On January 03 2025 04:31 Yurie wrote: The guess I heard for having an overly solid wall there is that it used to a blastoff wall, thus served a purpose. They then redesigned the airport and re-used the wall for a new purpose, which it works for but is now also a safety hazard.
If they did it as a new feature on the current airport setup it is clearly an error. Nobody is arguing that the wall should be there. If it wasn't there the accident would likely have been less lethal. That still doesn't make it the cause of the crash, only a contributing reason for it being so lethal.
I think we can agree that the bad landing was caused by a few errors, but it should be clear that it was also a reasonably executed landing given the terrible circumstances. After everything that went wrong they came up with a logical solution and this had a good chance of saving all lives on board. The wall is the only thing that made survival literally impossible. Without it, perhaps a dozen people die, maybe a few dozen people die, but 181 people likely wouldn't die.
This is complete conjecture. We can't have any idea whether their solution was logical when we do not know the details of the situation they were responding to.
The sequence of events and the systems that appear to be disabled are very hard to reconcile with how the plane's systems are designed. The things that plainly happened, should not ever happen, so we are well beyond the point where anyone can declare from their armchair that they know the circumstances and can assess the correctness of the pilots' solution.
The only real options are that there was an incredibly unlikely and precise sequence of multiple strikes, disabling multiple redundant systems in a way that has never happened before.... or the pilots made significant errors under pressure that turned a bad situation into a catastrophe.
We will not know which until the investigation is completed. Personally, the second seems more likely than the first, but there is little point speculating beyond that.
I won't even bother to address the idea that you know how many people would have died from something as chaotic as an airplane sliding on its engines through multiple obstacles at 200 kph.
On January 03 2025 04:31 Yurie wrote: The guess I heard for having an overly solid wall there is that it used to a blastoff wall, thus served a purpose. They then redesigned the airport and re-used the wall for a new purpose, which it works for but is now also a safety hazard.
If they did it as a new feature on the current airport setup it is clearly an error. Nobody is arguing that the wall should be there. If it wasn't there the accident would likely have been less lethal. That still doesn't make it the cause of the crash, only a contributing reason for it being so lethal.
I think we can agree that the bad landing was caused by a few errors, but it should be clear that it was also a reasonably executed landing given the terrible circumstances. After everything that went wrong they came up with a logical solution and this had a good chance of saving all lives on board. The wall is the only thing that made survival literally impossible. Without it, perhaps a dozen people die, maybe a few dozen people die, but 181 people likely wouldn't die.
This is complete conjecture. We can't have any idea whether their solution was logical when we do not know the details of the situation they were responding to.
The sequence of events and the systems that appear to be disabled are very hard to reconcile with how the plane's systems are designed. The things that plainly happened, should not ever happen, so we are well beyond the point where anyone can declare from their armchair that they know the circumstances and can assess the correctness of the pilots' solution.
The only real options are that there was an incredibly unlikely and precise sequence of multiple strikes, disabling multiple redundant systems in a way that has never happened before.... or the pilots made significant errors under pressure that turned a bad situation into a catastrophe.
We will not know which until the investigation is completed. Personally, the second seems more likely than the first, but there is little point speculating beyond that.
I won't even bother to address the idea that you know how many people would have died from something as chaotic as an airplane sliding on its engines through multiple obstacles at 200 kph.
It's funny that you accuse me of being the one to divert criticism when I'm going entirely by an expert opinion. Are you a pilot? Are you arguing that his assessment is wrong?
Pilots will make errors, this is expected. No human is perfect. In some instances the pilot is mostly to blame for a crash, but in most instances it's a combination of events and the pilot is only one variable. To put blame squarely on the pilot in this instance and not on the wall is absurd.
Everything points to this being a preventable disaster. The wall, the bird situation and the time of flight all show that the pilot faced some of the worst possible conditions.
On January 03 2025 04:31 Yurie wrote: The guess I heard for having an overly solid wall there is that it used to a blastoff wall, thus served a purpose. They then redesigned the airport and re-used the wall for a new purpose, which it works for but is now also a safety hazard.
If they did it as a new feature on the current airport setup it is clearly an error. Nobody is arguing that the wall should be there. If it wasn't there the accident would likely have been less lethal. That still doesn't make it the cause of the crash, only a contributing reason for it being so lethal.
I think we can agree that the bad landing was caused by a few errors, but it should be clear that it was also a reasonably executed landing given the terrible circumstances. After everything that went wrong they came up with a logical solution and this had a good chance of saving all lives on board. The wall is the only thing that made survival literally impossible. Without it, perhaps a dozen people die, maybe a few dozen people die, but 181 people likely wouldn't die.
This is complete conjecture. We can't have any idea whether their solution was logical when we do not know the details of the situation they were responding to.
The sequence of events and the systems that appear to be disabled are very hard to reconcile with how the plane's systems are designed. The things that plainly happened, should not ever happen, so we are well beyond the point where anyone can declare from their armchair that they know the circumstances and can assess the correctness of the pilots' solution.
The only real options are that there was an incredibly unlikely and precise sequence of multiple strikes, disabling multiple redundant systems in a way that has never happened before.... or the pilots made significant errors under pressure that turned a bad situation into a catastrophe.
We will not know which until the investigation is completed. Personally, the second seems more likely than the first, but there is little point speculating beyond that.
I won't even bother to address the idea that you know how many people would have died from something as chaotic as an airplane sliding on its engines through multiple obstacles at 200 kph.
It's funny that you accuse me of being the one to divert criticism when I'm going entirely by an expert opinion. Are you a pilot? Are you arguing that his assessment is wrong?
Pilots will make errors, this is expected. No human is perfect. In some instances the pilot is mostly to blame for a crash, but in most instances it's a combination of events and the pilot is only one variable. To put blame squarely on the pilot in this instance and not on the wall is absurd.
I'm not accusing you of diverting criticism. I'm accusing you of making overconfident conjectures when we have none of the information you would need to support that conjecture.
For the third time in the last two days, nobody is saying the bunker shouldn't be moved. However, the bunker is only a relatively small part of the problem. The goal of any review is to recommend ways to avoid the incident in future, and at this specific airport, yes, one recommendation will almost certainly be to re-house the ILS in something frangible. However, at a huge number of other airports without such bunkers, a plane overshooting the runway with no gear at 120 kts would still be a catastrophe. Therefore, it is short-sighted to focus on the bunker and ignore the situation that lead to a plane overshooting the runway at 120 kts in the first place.
Your second video is better, but I wonder whether you've actually watched it past the part where he states that the bunker is an issue, because he makes most of the important points.
The summary is: - bird strikes are relatively common and planes are designed to withstand them - the hydraulic systems that deploy the gear and flaps are highly redundant and very difficult to disable via strike - the engines themselves are also fully redundant - in the event of total failure, there are tertiary mechanisms to deploy the landing gear
For this specific sequence: - engine 2 is seen to take damage on approach - engine 2 appears to be producing thrust on landing, despite this damage - engine 2 has the reversers deployed on landing, which require hydraulics - therefore, the plane has at least partial thrust and hydraulics from one engine on landing
Therefore, it is very difficult to explain how damage alone lead to the plane landing without flaps or gear, and if the mechanical situation is ambiguous, it is pure conjecture to state that it was a "reasonably executed landing". While he couches it in apologetic language, this is essentially the conclusion your youtuber reaches as well, and he suggests outright that they simply forgot the gear.
There are a multitude of factors that are at least potentially due to pilot error, all of which he raises. There is the apparent failure to deploy the flaps/gear, the nonstandard decision to go around with damage when already configured for landing, the possibility that the wrong engine was shut down, the overspeed coming in, and the fact that the plane unquestionably floats in ground effect for too long and wastes much of the runway.
Avoiding any of these would likely have averted the catastrophe, so if even one turns out to be due to pilot error, then pilot error was a significant factor in the crash. We will know in a few months.
On January 03 2025 04:31 Yurie wrote: The guess I heard for having an overly solid wall there is that it used to a blastoff wall, thus served a purpose. They then redesigned the airport and re-used the wall for a new purpose, which it works for but is now also a safety hazard.
If they did it as a new feature on the current airport setup it is clearly an error. Nobody is arguing that the wall should be there. If it wasn't there the accident would likely have been less lethal. That still doesn't make it the cause of the crash, only a contributing reason for it being so lethal.
I think we can agree that the bad landing was caused by a few errors, but it should be clear that it was also a reasonably executed landing given the terrible circumstances. After everything that went wrong they came up with a logical solution and this had a good chance of saving all lives on board. The wall is the only thing that made survival literally impossible. Without it, perhaps a dozen people die, maybe a few dozen people die, but 181 people likely wouldn't die.
This is complete conjecture. We can't have any idea whether their solution was logical when we do not know the details of the situation they were responding to.
The sequence of events and the systems that appear to be disabled are very hard to reconcile with how the plane's systems are designed. The things that plainly happened, should not ever happen, so we are well beyond the point where anyone can declare from their armchair that they know the circumstances and can assess the correctness of the pilots' solution.
The only real options are that there was an incredibly unlikely and precise sequence of multiple strikes, disabling multiple redundant systems in a way that has never happened before.... or the pilots made significant errors under pressure that turned a bad situation into a catastrophe.
We will not know which until the investigation is completed. Personally, the second seems more likely than the first, but there is little point speculating beyond that.
I won't even bother to address the idea that you know how many people would have died from something as chaotic as an airplane sliding on its engines through multiple obstacles at 200 kph.
It's funny that you accuse me of being the one to divert criticism when I'm going entirely by an expert opinion. Are you a pilot? Are you arguing that his assessment is wrong?
Pilots will make errors, this is expected. No human is perfect. In some instances the pilot is mostly to blame for a crash, but in most instances it's a combination of events and the pilot is only one variable. To put blame squarely on the pilot in this instance and not on the wall is absurd.
I'm not accusing you of diverting criticism. I'm accusing you of making overconfident conjectures when we have none of the information you would need to support that conjecture.
For the third time in the last two days, nobody is saying the bunker shouldn't be moved. However, the bunker is only a relatively small part of the problem. The goal of any review is to recommend ways to avoid the incident in future, and at this specific airport, yes, one recommendation will almost certainly be to re-house the ILS in something frangible. However, at a huge number of other airports without such bunkers, a plane overshooting the runway with no gear at 120 kts would still be a catastrophe. Therefore, it is short-sighted to focus on the bunker and ignore the situation that lead to a plane overshooting the runway at 120 kts in the first place.
Your second video is better, but I wonder whether you've actually watched it past the part where he states that the bunker is an issue, because he makes most of the important points.
The summary is: - bird strikes are relatively common and planes are designed to withstand them - the hydraulic systems that deploy the gear and flaps are highly redundant and very difficult to disable via strike - the engines themselves are also fully redundant - in the event of total failure, there are tertiary mechanisms to deploy the landing gear
For this specific sequence: - engine 2 is seen to take damage on approach - engine 2 appears to be producing thrust on landing, despite this damage - engine 2 has the reversers deployed on landing, which require hydraulics - therefore, the plane has at least partial thrust and hydraulics from one engine on landing
Therefore, it is very difficult to explain how damage alone lead to the plane landing without flaps or gear, and if the mechanical situation is ambiguous, it is pure conjecture to state that it was a "reasonably executed landing". While he couches it in apologetic language, this is essentially the conclusion your youtuber reaches as well, and he suggests outright that they simply forgot the gear.
There are a multitude of factors that are at least potentially due to pilot error, all of which he raises. There is the apparent failure to deploy the flaps/gear, the nonstandard decision to go around with damage when already configured for landing, the possibility that the wrong engine was shut down, the overspeed coming in, and the fact that the plane unquestionably floats in ground effect for too long and wastes much of the runway.
Avoiding any of these would likely have averted the catastrophe, so if even one turns out to be due to pilot error, then pilot error was a significant factor in the crash. We will know in a few months.
The people you're accusing of being overconfident are very experienced pilots. Bring your complaints to them.
This sentence is completely irrelevant: "However, at a huge number of other airports without such bunkers, a plane overshooting the runway with no gear at 120 kts would still be a catastrophe."
It's akin to saying "other airports have the same problem, therefore this is not a problem." No, screw that. This mentality is absolutely horrible. Just because something exists in other places doesn't mean it's ok in that place.
On December 04 2024 00:20 Ardias wrote: Opposition majority in parliament was preparing impeachment and, probably, criminal case against acting president. He responded with martial law, banning the activity of the parliament and censoring the media.
dafuq censor the media and banning the parlament... covid made liberal states way more willing to apply martial law and shit like that, shame.
On January 01 2025 20:35 Belisarius wrote: I really think the bunker is a red herring. No airport in the world is designed for a plane to skid off the end of a runway on its nacelles at 200 kph. The number of things that had to go wrong for that situation to occur is astronomical.
Sure, the bunker probably shouldn't have been there and it's an easy recommendation for the report, but there's airports all over the world where the same situation would result in not only the same fireball, but the same fireball in the middle of random residential housing. The bunker is not the problem.
On January 03 2025 04:31 Yurie wrote: Nobody is arguing that the wall should be there. If it wasn't there the accident would likely have been less lethal. That still doesn't make it the cause of the crash, only a contributing reason for it being so lethal.
On January 04 2025 08:12 Belisarius wrote: For the third time in the last two days, nobody is saying the bunker shouldn't be moved. However, the bunker is only a relatively small part of the problem.
On January 04 2025 10:28 Belisarius wrote: For the fourth time in the last two days, nobody is saying that the bunker should not be moved.
On January 04 2025 10:28 Belisarius wrote: If you are not going to read, there is no point attempting to have a conversation.
On December 04 2024 00:20 Ardias wrote: Opposition majority in parliament was preparing impeachment and, probably, criminal case against acting president. He responded with martial law, banning the activity of the parliament and censoring the media.
dafuq censor the media and banning the parlament... covid made liberal states way more willing to apply martial law and shit like that, shame.
Well, in this case it turned out that the liberal state was very much not willing to apply martial law and so forth.
Martial law wasn't declared in the US to my knowledge. Martial law in South Korea has a history of being connected to violent military coups, not just the state legitimately acting in an emergency.
At the beginning of his term, our now ex-president moved the presidential residence from the historic Blue House to a new location. It was an expensive move, and inconvenienced a lot of government workers since if you were working at the Blue House before and living in the area, you were suddenly forced to look for a new place to live or stuck with a 2 hour commute.
Now, he's turning it into a bunker with Presidential Security Service refusing to comply with the arrest orders and setting up extra barbed wires and barricades all around while his supporters are shuttling in canned food and dry noodles. It's a complete fucking joke, but the world isn't laughing -- our currency and stock market has been taking a beating throughout the whole ordeal, and the whole thing just reflects so badly on our country. On top of this, the whole clown show at the new pres. residence all but guarantees that the next president will be moving right back into the Blue House -- which means more wasted money and more headaches for the people.
The only good thing about all of this is that our most die-hard conservatives have been showing their true traitorous colors and sane people in the country are basically completely done with their shit. The People's Power (what an ironic name) party will have to go through some serious restructuring, or if we're lucky, might even end up disbanding entirely, which would make the whole mess worth it in the long run, I suppose.
Oh and of course our conservatives are drawing parallels to Trump's bullshit and using that to support their ridiculous claims that this is totally not a big deal and the pres shouldn't have been impeached and definitely shouldn't be arrested and that everything is fine. Fucking MAGA virus needs to die in a fire.
On January 05 2025 11:39 Salazarz wrote:Fucking MAGA virus needs to die in a fire.
I negotiate with confrontational brinksmanship from loud mouthed know-it-all Americans all the time and attitudes like this do not work. This attitude only results in blow back. There is nothing wrong with feeling anger or frustration. You can't let it impact the clarity of your thinking. Relating these issues back to the bunch of American loud mouths is a big intellectual error.
If one wishes to lower nationalistic fervour then one must explore its roots and deal with those issues directly. Ignore history and you are doomed to repeat it.
So with MAGA specifically we're talking about American middle class workers getting totally fucked over in the 70s by those purporting to support them. And, I guess Vietnam draftees getting fucked over by the USA government along with American hostages languishing in Iran for 444 days. These issues gave rise to the MAGA slogan by Reagan during the 1980 election campaign. Obviously, in South Korea its a totally different story. Ignore history while villianizing and labelling those who disagree with you are you are doomed to repeat your own history.
I'd say MAGA's origins in the USA have zero resemblance to the feelings of nationalism in South Korea. So that gives us step #1.
Step #1 is: Ignore America. USA ain't got nuttin' to do with nuttin'. Americans make a lot of noise and do a lot of grand standing. Ignore it.
This is all standard protocol from the Pierre Elliott Trudeau manual on dealing with nationalism. I'm not inventing the wheel here. Its been dealt with before.
On January 05 2025 11:39 Salazarz wrote:Fucking MAGA virus needs to die in a fire.
I negotiate with confrontational brinksmanship from loud mouthed know-it-all Americans all the time and attitudes like this do not work. This attitude only results in blow back. There is nothing wrong with feeling anger or frustration. You can't let it impact the clarity of your thinking. Relating these issues back to the bunch of American loud mouths is a big intellectual error.
If one wishes to lower nationalistic fervour then one must explore its roots and deal with those issues directly. Ignore history and you are doomed to repeat it.
So with MAGA specifically we're talking about American middle class workers getting totally fucked over in the 70s by those purporting to support them. And, I guess Vietnam draftees getting fucked over by the USA government along with American hostages languishing in Iran for 444 days. These issues gave rise to the MAGA slogan by Reagan during the 1980 election campaign. Obviously, in South Korea its a totally different story. Ignore history while villianizing and labelling those who disagree with you are you are doomed to repeat your own history.
I'd say MAGA's origins in the USA have zero resemblance to the feelings of nationalism in South Korea. So that gives us step #1.
Step #1 is: Ignore America. USA ain't got nuttin' to do with nuttin'. Americans make a lot of noise and do a lot of grand standing. Ignore it.
This is all standard protocol from the Pierre Elliott Trudeau manual on dealing with nationalism. I'm not inventing the wheel here. Its been dealt with before.
Believe me, we would all love to be able to ignore the american hard-right. Sadly, our rightwing people see what happens in the US and see that it works there, so we get the exact same shit with slightly different colors all over the world. The US is once again a beacon of culture, but right now, that culture is incredibly shitty, hateful, full of lies and absurd bullshit and generally disgusting. It is like a lighthouse which instead of shining a light over the sea is now just pissing in all directions. And that MAGA virus does indeed just make politics shit everywhere. Of course, elsewhere it isn't "MAGA", but the same sentiment of just bullshitting your way to a world of alternative facts and somehow winning elections that way is still there.
And that way of politics just needs to go. We need to be able to have common facts again, and we need to hold politicians accountable if they just spout bullshit with no base in reality. We need to get back to discussing issues instead of whatever the fuck the US right is doing.
Also, it feels like you are kinda missing the point here. No one is talking about 1980s Reagan. We are talking about 2020s Trump. While using the same slogan, it is a very different movement.
But i agree that there are underlying core problems that would enable us to no longer have to deal with that shit. People feel shafted, and they notice that they have comparatively less. What they don't notice is where all the stuff is going. Which is billionaires, not foreigners.
There's plenty of evidence that US politics has a knock-on effect on the rest of the world with or without direct intervention. But not just that, they are in fact directly interferring. Trump and Elon and others talking shit about other countries has a direct effect on politics in EU countries, and the general approach to politics has also been copied in many places including apparently even in Asia. There's a reason why all of UK, Netherlands, Germany, Austria, Italy, Romania, and many more have been experiencing their own Trump-style politics. It's because of Trump.
We are right to attack Trump. It's a gigantic mistake to ignore him. All we need to figure out is how to attack him more optimally.
On January 05 2025 11:39 Salazarz wrote:Fucking MAGA virus needs to die in a fire.
I negotiate with confrontational brinksmanship from loud mouthed know-it-all Americans all the time and attitudes like this do not work. This attitude only results in blow back. There is nothing wrong with feeling anger or frustration. You can't let it impact the clarity of your thinking. Relating these issues back to the bunch of American loud mouths is a big intellectual error.
If one wishes to lower nationalistic fervour then one must explore its roots and deal with those issues directly. Ignore history and you are doomed to repeat it.
So with MAGA specifically we're talking about American middle class workers getting totally fucked over in the 70s by those purporting to support them. And, I guess Vietnam draftees getting fucked over by the USA government along with American hostages languishing in Iran for 444 days. These issues gave rise to the MAGA slogan by Reagan during the 1980 election campaign. Obviously, in South Korea its a totally different story. Ignore history while villianizing and labelling those who disagree with you are you are doomed to repeat your own history.
I'd say MAGA's origins in the USA have zero resemblance to the feelings of nationalism in South Korea. So that gives us step #1.
Step #1 is: Ignore America. USA ain't got nuttin' to do with nuttin'. Americans make a lot of noise and do a lot of grand standing. Ignore it.
This is all standard protocol from the Pierre Elliott Trudeau manual on dealing with nationalism. I'm not inventing the wheel here. Its been dealt with before.
I agree with some points. I also think there's a need to both consider the actions taken against them and more importantly the consequences.
It seems in south korea they wanted to question the president and he ignored it. So now they tried to arrrest him and that failed.
It seems many countries you just throw what you can against the nationalist wall and see what sticks. And their response is to ignore it or fight against it. Then the decision is to back down because escalation isn't deemed worth it. Makes the state look weak and like there are no consequences for breaking the law.
I think that is wrong. If you decide to arrest someone or stop someone from doing something (breaking in to the capitolium for example) you decide first if it's justified and that the consequences for doing it is worth it. Before you try. And then if you decide to do it then do it.
If arresting the previous PM is important then you escalate untill he is arrested. The state has a monopoly of violence after all. If it's just political bullshit don't do it at all.
The culture of attacking political opponents in every way possible has to stop, but when there truly is a serious cause the hammer also has to come down.
It's like GH points out, if this person actually tried a coup that is serious. At that point you clear the street with riot police, park a tank outside the building and kindly inform his security detail that they can either deal with the riot squad without guns or they can deal with a swat team with their guns after the tank sends 5 rounds of 120 mm HE into the building.
If it's not serious maybe don't accuse them of it and just let them keep making a fool of themselves.
That's not really true for the Netherlands. Our modern far right is mostly influenced by Pim Fortuyn at the start of the 2000s. Wilders, who currently leads the largest far right party in NL, founded his party in 2004 and supported a coalition in 2010. Long before Trump was politically relevant.
You seek out and indicate any allies or like-minded parties you can. This makes you seem more prominent and stronger than you are. You are likely to adopt even some views and positions for the sake of getting support. This is the case, especially when you are in a challenging position, be it fighting a much stronger opponent or being very unpopular locally. With the US being very dominant in media, entertainment, and cultural landscape, indicating some connection to them and their issues makes you and your issue seem much bigger. It is just a good strategy. The Internet has made this much more relevant as it is easier to tie yourself to things happening thousands of kilometres away.
From the US perspective, allies are sought from the EU or other "Western" countries like South Korea and Japan.
On January 05 2025 11:39 Salazarz wrote:Fucking MAGA virus needs to die in a fire.
I negotiate with confrontational brinksmanship from loud mouthed know-it-all Americans all the time and attitudes like this do not work. This attitude only results in blow back. There is nothing wrong with feeling anger or frustration. You can't let it impact the clarity of your thinking. Relating these issues back to the bunch of American loud mouths is a big intellectual error.
If one wishes to lower nationalistic fervour then one must explore its roots and deal with those issues directly. Ignore history and you are doomed to repeat it.
So with MAGA specifically we're talking about American middle class workers getting totally fucked over in the 70s by those purporting to support them. And, I guess Vietnam draftees getting fucked over by the USA government along with American hostages languishing in Iran for 444 days. These issues gave rise to the MAGA slogan by Reagan during the 1980 election campaign. Obviously, in South Korea its a totally different story. Ignore history while villianizing and labelling those who disagree with you are you are doomed to repeat your own history.
I'd say MAGA's origins in the USA have zero resemblance to the feelings of nationalism in South Korea. So that gives us step #1.
Step #1 is: Ignore America. USA ain't got nuttin' to do with nuttin'. Americans make a lot of noise and do a lot of grand standing. Ignore it.
This is all standard protocol from the Pierre Elliott Trudeau manual on dealing with nationalism. I'm not inventing the wheel here. Its been dealt with before.
I totally agree that ignoring history often leads to history repeating. Which is precisely why all these terminally online MAGA rats in Korea need to shut the fuck up, because we have plenty of history of harebrained despots thinking themselves above the law. The star & stripes waving, MAGA-hat wearing folks in our country have nothing to do with nationalism or worker issues, it's entirely manufactured outrage born chiefly in various far-right American echochambers. These aren't people upset about actual social or economic issues, it's people who are mad about gay liberal communists ruining the country, pining for the glorious days of Miracle on the Han.
I also agree that we need to ignore America. You should get that message to the assholes that block our police forces from doing their jobs while citing completely irrelevant American Supreme Court rulings.
On January 05 2025 11:39 Salazarz wrote:Fucking MAGA virus needs to die in a fire.
I negotiate with confrontational brinksmanship from loud mouthed know-it-all Americans all the time and attitudes like this do not work. This attitude only results in blow back. There is nothing wrong with feeling anger or frustration. You can't let it impact the clarity of your thinking. Relating these issues back to the bunch of American loud mouths is a big intellectual error.
If one wishes to lower nationalistic fervour then one must explore its roots and deal with those issues directly. Ignore history and you are doomed to repeat it.
So with MAGA specifically we're talking about American middle class workers getting totally fucked over in the 70s by those purporting to support them. And, I guess Vietnam draftees getting fucked over by the USA government along with American hostages languishing in Iran for 444 days. These issues gave rise to the MAGA slogan by Reagan during the 1980 election campaign. Obviously, in South Korea its a totally different story. Ignore history while villianizing and labelling those who disagree with you are you are doomed to repeat your own history.
I'd say MAGA's origins in the USA have zero resemblance to the feelings of nationalism in South Korea. So that gives us step #1.
Step #1 is: Ignore America. USA ain't got nuttin' to do with nuttin'. Americans make a lot of noise and do a lot of grand standing. Ignore it.
This is all standard protocol from the Pierre Elliott Trudeau manual on dealing with nationalism. I'm not inventing the wheel here. Its been dealt with before.
I agree with some points. I also think there's a need to both consider the actions taken against them and more importantly the consequences.
It seems in south korea they wanted to question the president and he ignored it. So now they tried to arrrest him and that failed.
It seems many countries you just throw what you can against the nationalist wall and see what sticks. And their response is to ignore it or fight against it. Then the decision is to back down because escalation isn't deemed worth it. Makes the state look weak and like there are no consequences for breaking the law.
I think that is wrong. If you decide to arrest someone or stop someone from doing something (breaking in to the capitolium for example) you decide first if it's justified and that the consequences for doing it is worth it. Before you try. And then if you decide to do it then do it.
If arresting the previous PM is important then you escalate untill he is arrested. The state has a monopoly of violence after all. If it's just political bullshit don't do it at all.
The culture of attacking political opponents in every way possible has to stop, but when there truly is a serious cause the hammer also has to come down.
It's like GH points out, if this person actually tried a coup that is serious. At that point you clear the street with riot police, park a tank outside the building and kindly inform his security detail that they can either deal with the riot squad without guns or they can deal with a swat team with their guns after the tank sends 5 rounds of 120 mm HE into the building.
If it's not serious maybe don't accuse them of it and just let them keep making a fool of themselves.
This is such a stupid comment. Yeah sure, let's bring out the tanks and start shooting at people because 'the state has a monopoly of violence.' Jesus Christ.
Declaring martial law and trying to arrest a bunch of people is serious. But since our military and police chiefs aren't psychotic bloodthirsty maniacs like yourself, the stupid orders were ignored and the president is now rightfully removed. If he and his handpicked guard wants to hole up in a building and hide behind a bunch of dumbass incels chanting 'FREEDUMB!', that's annoying but hardly worth starting a firefight over.
On January 05 2025 11:39 Salazarz wrote:Fucking MAGA virus needs to die in a fire.
I negotiate with confrontational brinksmanship from loud mouthed know-it-all Americans all the time and attitudes like this do not work. This attitude only results in blow back. There is nothing wrong with feeling anger or frustration. You can't let it impact the clarity of your thinking. Relating these issues back to the bunch of American loud mouths is a big intellectual error.
If one wishes to lower nationalistic fervour then one must explore its roots and deal with those issues directly. Ignore history and you are doomed to repeat it.
So with MAGA specifically we're talking about American middle class workers getting totally fucked over in the 70s by those purporting to support them. And, I guess Vietnam draftees getting fucked over by the USA government along with American hostages languishing in Iran for 444 days. These issues gave rise to the MAGA slogan by Reagan during the 1980 election campaign. Obviously, in South Korea its a totally different story. Ignore history while villianizing and labelling those who disagree with you are you are doomed to repeat your own history.
I'd say MAGA's origins in the USA have zero resemblance to the feelings of nationalism in South Korea. So that gives us step #1.
Step #1 is: Ignore America. USA ain't got nuttin' to do with nuttin'. Americans make a lot of noise and do a lot of grand standing. Ignore it.
This is all standard protocol from the Pierre Elliott Trudeau manual on dealing with nationalism. I'm not inventing the wheel here. Its been dealt with before.
I agree with some points. I also think there's a need to both consider the actions taken against them and more importantly the consequences.
It seems in south korea they wanted to question the president and he ignored it. So now they tried to arrrest him and that failed.
It seems many countries you just throw what you can against the nationalist wall and see what sticks. And their response is to ignore it or fight against it. Then the decision is to back down because escalation isn't deemed worth it. Makes the state look weak and like there are no consequences for breaking the law.
I think that is wrong. If you decide to arrest someone or stop someone from doing something (breaking in to the capitolium for example) you decide first if it's justified and that the consequences for doing it is worth it. Before you try. And then if you decide to do it then do it.
If arresting the previous PM is important then you escalate untill he is arrested. The state has a monopoly of violence after all. If it's just political bullshit don't do it at all.
The culture of attacking political opponents in every way possible has to stop, but when there truly is a serious cause the hammer also has to come down.
It's like GH points out, if this person actually tried a coup that is serious. At that point you clear the street with riot police, park a tank outside the building and kindly inform his security detail that they can either deal with the riot squad without guns or they can deal with a swat team with their guns after the tank sends 5 rounds of 120 mm HE into the building.
If it's not serious maybe don't accuse them of it and just let them keep making a fool of themselves.
This is such a stupid comment. Yeah sure, let's bring out the tanks and start shooting at people because 'the state has a monopoly of violence.' Jesus Christ.
Declaring martial law and trying to arrest a bunch of people is serious. But since our military and police chiefs aren't psychotic bloodthirsty maniacs like yourself, the stupid orders were ignored and the president is now rightfully removed. If he and his handpicked guard wants to hole up in a building and hide behind a bunch of dumbass incels chanting 'FREEDUMB!', that's annoying but hardly worth starting a firefight over.
Obviously it's not that serious since he is not being arrested.
The entire point is that these people keep pushing because they are perfectly able to do so. There are no consequences to breaking or ignoring the law. Compounded by a lot of previous lawfare that rewards them for ignoring the law.
If there are truly cause to arrest him for a serious crime there is not only the option for the state to arrest him, it's a mandate. It is what all law is based upon. The state binds its power with law but when it tells you it's going to do something you know it's going to happen. It will escalate until it happens and it doesn't matter what you do to resist it because it always has a bigger stick. It's not the state (or police) that choses violence, it's the entity resisting. A tank is just a reminder that you will lose in the end.
Who are 'these people'? What do 'they' 'keep pushing'? What 'lawfare' rewards 'them' for ignoring the law, and in what ways?
The idea that the state can always escalate with violence and thus resisting is pointless is what empowers abuse and dictators. The refusal of lower ranks of politicians and regular boots on the ground to use their 'bigger stick' is what stopped this crisis spiraling out of control. For the prosecutors / opposition to now insist on a violent reprisal against the ousted president would be incredibly bad optics and would only serve to divide the country.
EPT
