4 ms·

North Korea said in June that The Interview was a "wanton act of terror" and promised "merciless" retaliation if it was released. Said it was an "act of war" an

North Korea said in June that The Interview was a "wanton act of terror" and promised "merciless" retaliation if it was released. Said it was an "act of war" and "is absolutely intolerable" http://time.com/2921071/kim-jong-un-seth-rogen-the-interview-james-franco/ http://time.com/2921071/kim-jong-un-seth-rogen-the-interview... Edit: In July they made a complaint to the UN about the film, saying: "To allow the production and distribution of such a film on the assassination of an incumbent head of a sovereign state should be regarded as the most undisguised sponsoring of terrorism as well as an act of war," http://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/jul/10/north-korea-un-the-interview-seth-rogen-james-franco http://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/jul/10/north-korea-un-t... <sarcasm>I'm sure they had nothing to do with what happened to Sony</s>

xnull2guest 12y ago
How do you square this with the fact that NK makes empty threats all of the time?
- drzaiusapelord 12y ago
  They have thousands of pieces of artillery pointed at Seoul and have nuclear weapons. Every couple months they shell the S Korean side or a S Korean ship or kidnap someone. They may not have started WWIII, but they do act out violently. They are not all talk, unfortunately.
  - xnull2guest 12y ago
    Right but they still make plenty of empty threats especially on a global scale. Nor have their threats to use many of the artillery they have pointed toward South Korea (including nuclear arms) been fulfilled. Of course North Korea and South Korea have violent exchange. They are countries founded by settling down opposing armies on a border neither thinks is fair. I do not see how this 'squares' the fact that they are known for making empty threats?
    - mikeash 12y ago
      Their empty threats are empty because they're either incapable of carrying them out, or don't want the consequences of doing so. They don't invade the South because they know they'd lose. They don't turn the US into a lake of fire because they're unable to do so. But hacking an entertainment company is within their means, and the consequences are not too bad. The fact that they sometimes threaten things they can't do adds no information to the question of whether they did this thing.
      - xnull2guest 12y ago
        > The fact that they sometimes threaten things they can't do adds no information to the question of whether they did this thing. I think it does. I think it calls into question that when NK makes a threat, we can't just assume that they're going to follow up on it. That is, their making a threat adds no information to the question of whether they did this thing. And that's my point. OP argues that since they made a threat we can eat dessert and wash our hands.
yourad_io 12y ago
Great find. EVERYONE - we found the guilty party; they had motive. No other parties could possibly also have had motive (and motive===guilt), so we can stop looking now.</s>
- rgbrenner 12y ago
  You seem to be in need of this: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/motive http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/motive motive: something (as a need or desire) that causes a person to act There is a difference between a motive and stating you intend to take an action. North Korea has a motive AND has publicly stated they intend to take action. They should not be surprised if they are the prime suspect when that action occurs.
  - yourad_io 12y ago
    > You seem to be in need of this: http://www.merriam-webster.com/ http://www.merriam-webster.com/ Wow, thanks! Bookmarked. > There is a difference between a motive and stating you intend to take an action. Barely. You've made your motive public and added a threat on top of that. > North Korea has a motive AND has publicly stated they intend to take action. NK has a long history of threatening everyone and their mothers with doom and gloom and nuclear boom, and we're all still here (i.e. they rarely follow through). But even then - let's look into the threat a bit, shall we? I can't actually find the original source, best I could do (I gotta run - apologies) is: > "If the US administration allows and defends the showing of the film, a merciless counter-measure will be taken," the spokesman was quoted as saying. [1] So, their merciless counter-measure, that they vowed to on a world stage, was in fact: "We'll pay someone to hack Sony, then deny it" ..? Really? (Let alone that the original threat was obviously aimed at the US administration). [1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-28014069 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-28014069 PS: Back in June, Rogen responded on Twitter: "People don't usually wanna kill me for one of my movies until after they've paid 12 bucks for it.". That's exactly what I would do.
    - rgbrenner 12y ago
      > Wow, thanks! Bookmarked. You're welcome (I can tell that's not sarcasm, since it doesn't have any sarcasm tags ;) > "We'll pay someone to hack Sony, then deny it" NK doesn't always admit to things they do. They denied kidnapping japanese citizens for 25 years, until they admitted it 2002. The Cheonan was sunk by an NK torpedo.. NK denies it.. but an international investigation said NK sunk it.. condemned by the UN security council. (later a defector from NK said the crew that sank it were honored as heros.) Assuming NK to act rational is sometimes asking for too much.

xnull2guest 12y ago

How do you square this with the fact that NK makes empty threats all of the time?

drzaiusapelord 12y ago
They have thousands of pieces of artillery pointed at Seoul and have nuclear weapons. Every couple months they shell the S Korean side or a S Korean ship or kidnap someone. They may not have started WWIII, but they do act out violently. They are not all talk, unfortunately.
- xnull2guest 12y ago
  Right but they still make plenty of empty threats especially on a global scale. Nor have their threats to use many of the artillery they have pointed toward South Korea (including nuclear arms) been fulfilled. Of course North Korea and South Korea have violent exchange. They are countries founded by settling down opposing armies on a border neither thinks is fair. I do not see how this 'squares' the fact that they are known for making empty threats?
  - mikeash 12y ago
    Their empty threats are empty because they're either incapable of carrying them out, or don't want the consequences of doing so. They don't invade the South because they know they'd lose. They don't turn the US into a lake of fire because they're unable to do so. But hacking an entertainment company is within their means, and the consequences are not too bad. The fact that they sometimes threaten things they can't do adds no information to the question of whether they did this thing.
    - xnull2guest 12y ago
      > The fact that they sometimes threaten things they can't do adds no information to the question of whether they did this thing. I think it does. I think it calls into question that when NK makes a threat, we can't just assume that they're going to follow up on it. That is, their making a threat adds no information to the question of whether they did this thing. And that's my point. OP argues that since they made a threat we can eat dessert and wash our hands.

yourad_io 12y ago

Great find. EVERYONE - we found the guilty party; they had motive. No other parties could possibly also have had motive (and motive===guilt), so we can stop looking now.</s>

rgbrenner 12y ago
You seem to be in need of this: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/motive http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/motive motive: something (as a need or desire) that causes a person to act There is a difference between a motive and stating you intend to take an action. North Korea has a motive AND has publicly stated they intend to take action. They should not be surprised if they are the prime suspect when that action occurs.
- yourad_io 12y ago
  > You seem to be in need of this: http://www.merriam-webster.com/ http://www.merriam-webster.com/ Wow, thanks! Bookmarked. > There is a difference between a motive and stating you intend to take an action. Barely. You've made your motive public and added a threat on top of that. > North Korea has a motive AND has publicly stated they intend to take action. NK has a long history of threatening everyone and their mothers with doom and gloom and nuclear boom, and we're all still here (i.e. they rarely follow through). But even then - let's look into the threat a bit, shall we? I can't actually find the original source, best I could do (I gotta run - apologies) is: > "If the US administration allows and defends the showing of the film, a merciless counter-measure will be taken," the spokesman was quoted as saying. [1] So, their merciless counter-measure, that they vowed to on a world stage, was in fact: "We'll pay someone to hack Sony, then deny it" ..? Really? (Let alone that the original threat was obviously aimed at the US administration). [1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-28014069 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-28014069 PS: Back in June, Rogen responded on Twitter: "People don't usually wanna kill me for one of my movies until after they've paid 12 bucks for it.". That's exactly what I would do.
  - rgbrenner 12y ago
    > Wow, thanks! Bookmarked. You're welcome (I can tell that's not sarcasm, since it doesn't have any sarcasm tags ;) > "We'll pay someone to hack Sony, then deny it" NK doesn't always admit to things they do. They denied kidnapping japanese citizens for 25 years, until they admitted it 2002. The Cheonan was sunk by an NK torpedo.. NK denies it.. but an international investigation said NK sunk it.. condemned by the UN security council. (later a defector from NK said the crew that sank it were honored as heros.) Assuming NK to act rational is sometimes asking for too much.