Hmmmmm. We almost got him.
What do you think?
I would hope the US would be a little more subtle 
.
Unlikely that it was any more than a coincidence. Besides, the blast occurred several hours after Kim had left the area. If it was an intentional attack, it was pretty sloppy don’t you think?
Supposing for a moment that this was an intentional explosion, it almost certainly would not have been an assassination attempt by any foreign gov’t. Not with the size of the North Korean military, and the distinct possibility that North Korea already has nukes. If it was intentional, it was most likely an internal assassination attempt.
Wasn’t it nine hours after he went by?
According to CNN, the blast was 9 hours later.
From CNN. **The International Red Cross says at least 54 people are dead and more than 1,200 others injured after rail cars laden with explosives triggered a massive blast in North Korea. **
Those numbers are expected to rise as the hours go by, Beijing-based Red Cross spokesman John Sparrow told CNN on Friday.
“There is an enormous amount of destruction and an enormous amount of casualties,” he said.
Initial reports out of North Korea show that 1,850 homes and 12 public buildings were completely destroyed by Thursday’s blast in the town of Ryongchon, near the Chinese border
Someone hoped we would be more subtle… IMO I have no problem assasinating ruthless dictators who threaten our security, I know this is not our National policy (or at least stated policy).
I would hope we would be more successful if it was us. That said I’m sure we, directly or indirectly, trained or funded the people who attempted it. Our intelligence/CIA needs to be better at these types of things. We used to be top notch at these types of things during the 80’s under Reagan.
Well, I don’t know about top notch under Reagan, although there was pretty free reign in his administration. Basically, you could do what you wanted and not get in the dog house for it. Remember Operation El Dorado Canyon? Ooops- missed again. But years later (unfortunately after Lockerbie) it has had the desired effect. Qaddafi has suddenly become very cooperative.
As for Kim Jong Il, he better be looking over his shoulder 24/7.
IMO we were the best in the world, but not perfect. It’s a tough business, especially when these people have alot of money and know people want to kill them. And they have the benefit of being on their own soil, which they obviously know better than us.
I would say what Reagan let go on was an essential element in bringing down communism around the world. In our defending our security I feel the ends justifies the means. It’s not as if we are killing good people.
I think we’d be well served to go after more people like this. No UN, no congress approval, no court of public opinion and using polls to decide what is best, honestly 99% of americans have no clue what is going on anyway. I trust our administration to decide who is a threat, and it’s rather obvious who these people are. Operations like Afgahnistan/Iraq are well justified and militarily essential, but killing some of these people “off the radar” would get the media/democrats off our own ass.
Reagan’s best quote" “They counted on America to be passive. They counted wrong.”
We’d be well served to be like we were under Reagan. The more I read about him, the more I admire him as a great president, leader, and man. He was a stoic, and his principles did not waver. When I hear his quotes where he calls out the soviets, it makes me proud to be American. We stood up and put them on notice, and they fell.
Did anyone read Bin Laden’s manifesto? It was quoted in yesterday’s WSJ. Basically, Bin Laden called us out on being big pansies by pulling out of Mogadishu and not standing up and fighting. A very direct slap in the face, but realistically, he was right. And the terrorists have exploited our weaknesses very well asa result of our actions the past 10 years.
We went from calling out the soviets and winning the cold war, to being weak and unwilling to show force, o to follow through with any action. America had become too interested in people liking us, not being the world leader. And we got kicked in the nuts for it.
Bush’s last press conference on Tuesday was great. Quite Reaganesque, he called it like it is, and basically said we aren’t taking anymore sh*t from anyone. He put the world back on notice as to who’s in charge.
And that is why Bush is my President.
My gut says this was an accident. I doubt we’ll ever really know.
If this was an assasination attempt on our part it would have to be counted as one of our more spectacular failures. Hundreds dead while the primary target remains alive? Sheesh. We’re supposed to be the good guys.
Like I said though. Probably some accident.
I would like to think that it is not an accident…then again at that I would be dismayed that our folks did not get the job done. I am all for killing these idiots…many of them.
So you are in favour of state sponsored terrorism, as long as its your country doing the terrorising?
So you are in favour of state sponsored terrorism, as long as its your country doing the terrorising?
YES…some people should die. Kill them before they can kill any more of us…they started it. We will as usual finish it. It is not terrorism…we are not killing their civilians (on purpose) they ARE killing ours. When is the last time a US soldier took a hostage - put on a parade of CNN then killed them?
So blowing up a train with a blast large enough to level something like 2000 homes is not targeting civilians, in a country with which active warfare has not been engaged in 50 years? Sorry mate, that is terrorism. No different from a Palestinian blowing themselves up in an Israeli area.
Anyhow, CNN has just confirmed that it was an accident. A good thing (well as good as this kind of tragedy can be) as I cannot imagine anyone in senior command authorising any kind of operation like that.
Ok. Let’s get one thing straight here. The dead were human beings. Just because they grew up under some out of this world political system from which few have any chance of escaping does not diminish the value of their lives. If i’m not mistaken most of the dead were construction and cargo workers of some sort. Hardly targets of much military value. To what end does it serve to kill them?
Indiscriminate killing of is unbecoming of a civilized society. I like to think we are a civilized society and an example for other nations to follow.
However, if it is your fantasy to be parachuted into NK and let loose a can of whoop ass on the general population like a latter day Rambo, then so be it. I doubt it would accomplish much.
“One man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist”
I don’t know who said it, but it rings true. In the Vietnam war the Viet Cong offered the English equivalent of nearly $100 (a fortune to the VC) for the capture or killing of any U.S. long range recon team member.
Recon team guys were considered terrorists by the NVA and the VC becasue of their flexible tactics, adaptive training, high degree of personal initiative and outstanding battlefield performance.
While this is neither a moral (war is inherently immoral) or politically popular sentiment, how can we be expected to fight terrorism without employing it?
It is worth mentioning that when the machine gun was first introduced on the battlefield it was viewed with equal disdain. It was viewed as an indiscriminate, unfair, immoral weapon (which it is). But sooner or later, armies realized they all had to have it to be a force equalizer.
Terrorism is the same.
OH, and I should add, please don’t interpret my comments as advocating this type of ugly business.
If I had my druthers, we’d all work it out over a negotiating table. The alternative is always a deplorable affair.
That said, it was Plato who said “Only the dead have seen the end of war.”