• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Kim Jong Un fed his uncle to 120 starving dogs: report

The uncle had a chance to survive. Kim proved the uncle was a sissy and lacked command of his men. Case closed.

How would he have managed to kill the dogs in the first place without a shiv of some sort?

And to be fair, they were probably beaten and starved for days before they were thrown into the cage (assuming that this happened).
 
Dennis Rodman needs psychiatric help for hobnobbing with that madman.
 
Dennis Rodman needs psychiatric help for hobnobbing with that madman.

I wonder if he feels embarrassed by his past support of Kim Jong.
 
I wonder if he feels embarrassed by his past support of Kim Jong.

I hope so. At first he had a legitimate claim of ignorance. Today, he knows full well they guy has got to be on of the most evil people alive.
 
I didn't learn much in airborne school. It was the time I spent serving with the 82nd that taught me the importance of aggression.




First, a dog on my arm or leg does not end my service. I'll destroy its eyes and I can kill more.

Second, you're ignoring tactics. Let's look at the most important 3:

1. The dogs are hungry and thus weak, excessive aggression will pay off against them.
2. The alphas are BARELY holding onto control of the pack. Break them and chaos ensues.
3. We don't need to kill them all.


Those 6 died because they curled up like little sissies. At least one, maybe three, should have lived. They failed their test.

Am I missing a piece of the puzzle here? Do you have a youtube video of this happening? We don't even know if the entire event even happened, much less their level of courage in the situation.
 
I hope so. At first he had a legitimate claim of ignorance.

Only if he had never picked up a newspaper in his life. And even then his friends, family, coach, the pilot for his airplane, the guy who maintains the airplane...literally everyone...would have at some point had to tell him, "Hey Dennis, you do know that the North Korean regime is cartoonishly evil, right?"

But I also think it's really easy to forget the extraordinary bubble famous people can find themselves in.
 
Only if he had never picked up a newspaper in his life. And even then his friends, family, coach, the pilot for his airplane, the guy who maintains the airplane...literally everyone...would have at some point had to tell him, "Hey Dennis, you do know that the North Korean regime is cartoonishly evil, right?"

I think it's really easy to forget the extraordinary bubble famous people can find themselves in.

:lamo He's in good company....without mentioning names.

First thing he needs to do is cancel his basketball event over there. I can see how he'll be able to recruit any NBA alum anyway.
 
Last edited:
attachment.php
 
Incorrect.



Weak. An 11b buddy who saw combat in Afghan says we could do it with 4 like us, and one or more survives.


Let's face it, the uncle and his men were pansies.
You have a 11b buddy?
 
Let's give credit where credit is due. Kim was right, the evidence stands for itself. We might also note that dogs are eaten by people in nK, so it's kinda fair.
 
Let's give credit where credit is due. Kim was right, the evidence stands for itself.

Kim was right about what?

We might also note that dogs are eaten by people in nK, so it's kinda fair.

Oh, but of course.
 
That uncle was no good. What kind of elite military commander with his best 5 men is defeated by dogs? Was David defeated by dogs?

I sure wouldn't be. Of course, I'm the only one here who knows secret Ninja moves from the government.
 
Read more here:
Kim Jong Un fed his uncle to 120 starving dogs: report

That is about as sadistic as it gets.

It's **** like this that makes me realize how much I hate moral equivalency.

We had a thread the other day with people arguing over the "cruelty" if executing someone with a drug cocktail not yet tested on humans because the normal one was no longer sold. It was being made out to be a horrible, cruel, unusual punishment of the worst kind.

.....then you see "eaten alive by 120 starving dogs" and you realize however bad you may feel like some of what we do is, the act like we're some kind of backwards dictatorial third world barbaric regime morally is just ridiculous.
 
It's **** like this that makes me realize how much I hate moral equivalency.

We had a thread the other day with people arguing over the "cruelty" if executing someone with a drug cocktail not yet tested on humans because the normal one was no longer sold. It was being made out to be a horrible, cruel, unusual punishment of the worst kind.

.....then you see "eaten alive by 120 starving dogs" and you realize however bad you may feel like some of what we do is, the act like we're some kind of backwards dictatorial third world barbaric regime morally is just ridiculous.

True, but defending something we do on the basis that it's not as bad as the practices of the worst possible countries on earth is also pretty weak.
 
I was gonna say, I've seen Kim defended here.

Figures. I reached a critical mass lately in which I finally stopped being surprised by anonymous internet strangers saying crazy, inflammatory things.
 
I would have thought more highly of the guy if he'd fed his uncle to his starving citizens instead.
 
True, but defending something we do on the basis that it's not as bad as the practices of the worst possible countries on earth is also pretty weak.

I'm not really even talking about the "defending" something we do. If we do wrong then we should address that.

It's more the general notion that comes up at times of a "we're as bad as ...." type of thing. It's the same type of thing that would irk me with things back during the war as well. Want to complain about what we do, cool. Want to say we're "no different" than people doing a significantly more barbaric and worse thing at a far greater frequency? That's ridiculous.

It's not so much a notion of "see, what is happening in that other situation is okay". Rather, it's simply trying to look at it a bit in context. Is that particular case wrong or "cruel and unusual by our standards"? That's a big question, and one for another thread. But the fact we're even HAVING that conversation over something that theoretically is meant to be a painless form of execution, but simply hasn't been tested on humans is a wonderful sign that REGARDLESS of how you feel about it you should still be able to feel that the United States as a country and a society does generally try to be as humane as possible on this issue.

We're arguing about whether or not we should use an untested means of potentially painless chemical execution......North Korea is having prisoners eaten by 120 starving dogs.

Even if you can't stand the death penalty, or if you don't mind it but don't agree with what's happening in that case, you should still be able to step back and go "regardless of how wrong I think this is, I can be thankful that I'm in a society where THIS is the worst that's being debated on this topic".

Like I said, it's the whole relative morality thing that it makes me think of. That notion acknowledges that both things CAN be wrong. It's simply suggested that two wrongs aren't always necessarily equal.
 
I'm not really even talking about the "defending" something we do. If we do wrong then we should address that.

It's more the general notion that comes up at times of a "we're as bad as ...." type of thing. It's the same type of thing that would irk me with things back during the war as well. Want to complain about what we do, cool. Want to say we're "no different" than people doing a significantly more barbaric and worse thing at a far greater frequency? That's ridiculous.

It's not so much a notion of "see, what is happening in that other situation is okay". Rather, it's simply trying to look at it a bit in context. Is that particular case wrong or "cruel and unusual by our standards"? That's a big question, and one for another thread. But the fact we're even HAVING that conversation over something that theoretically is meant to be a painless form of execution, but simply hasn't been tested on humans is a wonderful sign that REGARDLESS of how you feel about it you should still be able to feel that the United States as a country and a society does generally try to be as humane as possible on this issue.

We're arguing about whether or not we should use an untested means of potentially painless chemical execution......North Korea is having prisoners eaten by 120 starving dogs.

Even if you can't stand the death penalty, or if you don't mind it but don't agree with what's happening in that case, you should still be able to step back and go "regardless of how wrong I think this is, I can be thankful that I'm in a society where THIS is the worst that's being debated on this topic".

Like I said, it's the whole relative morality thing that it makes me think of. That notion acknowledges that both things CAN be wrong. It's simply suggested that two wrongs aren't always necessarily equal.

Depends on what the point is. If someone is arguing that what we're doing is equal to feeding live prisoners to hungry dogs then obviously that's stupid. If they're arguing that we share, for example, the death penalty, with a country we hold to be largely uncivilized when the rest of the world has moved on then that's different.
 
The article itself states that while the story may not be certain, the thing about it is its extreme believability in light of what we know about the Kims.

I don't like to say I'm good at anything, I think there's a fine line between confidence and arrogance.

But besides perhaps PSK and DonSutherland I would rate myself after all the research I've done as the one of the foremost experts on North Korea in this forum and barring my light hearted comment on page 1 I had severe doubts about this story.

It's a bit too twirly mustache even by the Kims standards.
 
Back
Top Bottom