Difference between revisions of "Cheonan sinking"

From Wikispooks
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(No longer current)
(No longer current)
Line 12: Line 12:
 
|Based on all such relevant facts and classified analysis, we have reached the clear conclusion that ROKS "Cheonan" was sunk as the result of an external underwater explosion caused by a torpedo made in North Korea. The evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that the torpedo was fired by a North Korean submarine. There is no other plausible explanation.
 
|Based on all such relevant facts and classified analysis, we have reached the clear conclusion that ROKS "Cheonan" was sunk as the result of an external underwater explosion caused by a torpedo made in North Korea. The evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that the torpedo was fired by a North Korean submarine. There is no other plausible explanation.
 
}}
 
}}
−
The report is described as having been ''"conducted by a team of international experts"'', giving it an air of authority which its language, general format, presentation and speed of completion do not warrant. Here is What Stephen Gowans has to say on the matter:
+
The report is described as having been ''"conducted by a team of international experts"'', giving it an air of authority which its language, general format, presentation and speed of completion do not warrant. Here is what Stephen Gowans has to say on the matter:
 
{{QB
 
{{QB
 
|It is true that the Cheonan inquiry was made up of representatives of various countries that are hostile to north Korea. It was, then, “international,” in a very limited, and deceptive, sense. It wasn’t a board of inquiry comprised of members of the non-aligned movement, or drawn randomly from the UN general assembly, for example — boards that, had they been assembled, would have had a legitimate claim to being labeled ‘international’ in a sense that bears substantive, rather than deceptive, meaning. Labeling the inquiry ‘international’ is an attempt to deceive by using ‘international’ to mean ‘unbiased’ when the inquiry clearly wasn’t unbiased toward south Korea’s agenda. A board of inquiry assembled by the Soviet Union, comprising representatives of East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Hungary and Cuba, would have been international, too. But it would hardly be expected that the board would have arrived at a conclusion at odds with Soviet interests. Likewise, the idea that a board of inquiry comprising representatives of countries that are south Korean allies, and which share an antagonism toward the DPRK, should render findings at odds with south Korea’s agenda, is absurd in the extreme. <ref>[http://gowans.wordpress.com/2010/05/20/the-sinking-of-the-cheonan-another-gulf-of-tonkin-incident/#comments Stephen Gowans - The sinking of the Cheonan: Another Gulf of Tonkin Incident - comments section - 22 May 2010]</ref>
 
|It is true that the Cheonan inquiry was made up of representatives of various countries that are hostile to north Korea. It was, then, “international,” in a very limited, and deceptive, sense. It wasn’t a board of inquiry comprised of members of the non-aligned movement, or drawn randomly from the UN general assembly, for example — boards that, had they been assembled, would have had a legitimate claim to being labeled ‘international’ in a sense that bears substantive, rather than deceptive, meaning. Labeling the inquiry ‘international’ is an attempt to deceive by using ‘international’ to mean ‘unbiased’ when the inquiry clearly wasn’t unbiased toward south Korea’s agenda. A board of inquiry assembled by the Soviet Union, comprising representatives of East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Hungary and Cuba, would have been international, too. But it would hardly be expected that the board would have arrived at a conclusion at odds with Soviet interests. Likewise, the idea that a board of inquiry comprising representatives of countries that are south Korean allies, and which share an antagonism toward the DPRK, should render findings at odds with south Korea’s agenda, is absurd in the extreme. <ref>[http://gowans.wordpress.com/2010/05/20/the-sinking-of-the-cheonan-another-gulf-of-tonkin-incident/#comments Stephen Gowans - The sinking of the Cheonan: Another Gulf of Tonkin Incident - comments section - 22 May 2010]</ref>
Line 20: Line 20:
  
 
==Western MSM coverage==
 
==Western MSM coverage==
−
Development of the story of the sinking in the Western MSM has followed the usual pattern of reporting on matters involving countries that decline subservience to the Western world view. Such countries are routinely demonized as 'rogue states' part of an 'axis of evil' and generally ridiculed as beyond the pale of Western civilized values. Their version of events is at best reported briefly; at worst simply ridiculed. The Western interpretation is repeated ad nauseam and pariah status is thus reinforced. So it is with the sinking of the Cheonan; and yet there is solid evidence, quite apart from rigorous intuition, pointing to either a deliberate false-flag operation or a 'friendly fire' event blamed on North Korea for patently obvious geo-political reasons.
+
Development of the story of the sinking in the Western {{ccm}} has followed the usual pattern of reporting on matters involving countries that decline subservience to the Western world view. Such countries are routinely demonized as 'rogue states' part of an 'axis of evil' and generally ridiculed as beyond the pale of Western civilized values. Their version of events is at best reported briefly; at worst simply ridiculed. The Western interpretation is repeated ad nauseam and pariah status is thus reinforced. So it is with the sinking of the Cheonan; and yet there is solid evidence, quite apart from rigorous intuition, pointing to either a deliberate false-flag operation or a 'friendly fire' event blamed on North Korea for patently obvious geo-political reasons.
  
 
As ever, the question ''Qui bono?'' reveals facts and motivations which the official narrative does its best to minimise or conceal.
 
As ever, the question ''Qui bono?'' reveals facts and motivations which the official narrative does its best to minimise or conceal.

Revision as of 16:24, 29 October 2013

Pohang Class corvettes of the ROKN

This article concerns the sinking of the South Korean Corvette 'Cheonan' on 26 March 2010 with the loss of 46 South Korean sailors. The event occurred about 1 nautical mile off the South West Coast of Baengnyeong Island in the Yellow Sea and close to the disputed maritime border with North Korea Map. The island is dominated by a joint U.S.-Korean base for anti-submarine warfare (ASW) operations. The sea channel between Byeongnyeong and the North Korean coast is narrow enough for both sides to be in artillery range of each other.

Baengnyeong Island shown in red

The event took place in the aftermath of the 11-18 March 2010 'Foal Eagle' Exercise, which included anti-submarine maneuvers by a joint U.S.-South Korean squadron of five missile ships. Mystery surrounds the continued presence of U.S. missile cruisers in the locality more than eight days after the ASW exercise ended.


Inquiry by "a panel of International experts"

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton claimed that there is "overwhelming evidence in favor of the theory that North Korea sank the South Korean Navy warship". She was referring to a brief, 5 page report of an investigation commissioned by the South Korean government which was published on 20 May 2010 [1]. It's concluding paragraph states:

Based on all such relevant facts and classified analysis, we have reached the clear conclusion that ROKS "Cheonan" was sunk as the result of an external underwater explosion caused by a torpedo made in North Korea. The evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that the torpedo was fired by a North Korean submarine. There is no other plausible explanation.

The report is described as having been "conducted by a team of international experts", giving it an air of authority which its language, general format, presentation and speed of completion do not warrant. Here is what Stephen Gowans has to say on the matter:

It is true that the Cheonan inquiry was made up of representatives of various countries that are hostile to north Korea. It was, then, “international,” in a very limited, and deceptive, sense. It wasn’t a board of inquiry comprised of members of the non-aligned movement, or drawn randomly from the UN general assembly, for example — boards that, had they been assembled, would have had a legitimate claim to being labeled ‘international’ in a sense that bears substantive, rather than deceptive, meaning. Labeling the inquiry ‘international’ is an attempt to deceive by using ‘international’ to mean ‘unbiased’ when the inquiry clearly wasn’t unbiased toward south Korea’s agenda. A board of inquiry assembled by the Soviet Union, comprising representatives of East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Hungary and Cuba, would have been international, too. But it would hardly be expected that the board would have arrived at a conclusion at odds with Soviet interests. Likewise, the idea that a board of inquiry comprising representatives of countries that are south Korean allies, and which share an antagonism toward the DPRK, should render findings at odds with south Korea’s agenda, is absurd in the extreme. [2]

North Korean categorical denial of involvement

The North Korean Government have issued repeated categorical denials of any involvement in the sinking and threatened dire consequences if any punitive action is taken against North Korea as a consequence of their alleged involvement.

Western MSM coverage

Development of the story of the sinking in the Western commercially-controlled media has followed the usual pattern of reporting on matters involving countries that decline subservience to the Western world view. Such countries are routinely demonized as 'rogue states' part of an 'axis of evil' and generally ridiculed as beyond the pale of Western civilized values. Their version of events is at best reported briefly; at worst simply ridiculed. The Western interpretation is repeated ad nauseam and pariah status is thus reinforced. So it is with the sinking of the Cheonan; and yet there is solid evidence, quite apart from rigorous intuition, pointing to either a deliberate false-flag operation or a 'friendly fire' event blamed on North Korea for patently obvious geo-political reasons.

As ever, the question Qui bono? reveals facts and motivations which the official narrative does its best to minimise or conceal.

9 July 2010 update

Reported in Voice of America News on 9 July 2010 - US Professors Raise Doubts About Report on South Korean Ship Sinking [3]

27 November 2010 update

Global Research reports that a US nuclear submarine sank in the same are around the same time as the Cheonan. [4]

Global Research Editor's note: This article by investigative reporter Tanaka Sakai reveals that a US atomic submarine was also sunk at the time of the Cheonan incident, pointing to the possibility of friendly fire between the two vessels.

"But around the time of this incident another sinking occurred that has hardly been reported in Japan. Near the site of the sinking of the Cheonan, a colossal object, which appears to be a US submarine, was found to have sunk. An ROK underwater team searched for, and on April 7 South Korea’s KBS TV showed, a US helicopter carrying what seems to be the body of a US soldier. KBS is a public broadcasting station with the highest credibility in South Korea."

"ROK and US authorities did their best to hide the fact that a US submarine sank at about the same time as the Cheonan.... On the day of the incident, the exercise was underway. After the incident, the US-ROK authorities made no mention of the fact that the joint military exercise was in progress. But the day after the incident, various ROK media and newspapers reported that the Cheonan might have been sunk by friendly fire during the military exercise."

Michel Chossudovsky, November 27, 2010

See Also

References

  1. ↑ File:JCMIG-Cheonan-report.pdf
  2. ↑ Stephen Gowans - The sinking of the Cheonan: Another Gulf of Tonkin Incident - comments section - 22 May 2010
  3. ↑ US Professors Raise Doubts About Report on South Korean Ship Sinking
  4. ↑ North Korea: Who Sank the Cheonan? Who Sank the US Atomic Submarine? Global Research 27 November 2010

External links

Retrieved from "https://wikispooks.com/w/index.php?title=Cheonan_sinking&oldid=19613"