German Newspaper: Supernotes Are a CIA Plot!
Things sure have gotten strange over in the Soft Reich when a major German newspaper, the Frankfurter Allemaigne Zeitung, theorizes — in a complete evidentiary vacuum, too — that North Korean supernotes are actually a secret CIA plot run from from a printing house in the DC area (Korean link). The sole basis for this novel theory, besides the unshakeable conviction that George W. Bush must be responsible for all evil on earth, is that counterfeiting is simply too complex for a poor country like North Korea.
No word on whether North Korea’s nuclear weapons were built at Oak Ridge. For some more substantial journalism on the origins of the North Korean supernote, see this.
This theory will spread like wildfire in South Korea, where it will be accepted by millions without question … just like a theory espoused a few decades ago that Jewish bankers conspired to undermine the Kaiser’s war effort and impose the Treaty of Versailles on the Fatherland. Nice to see that the Germans haven’t lost their touch at groundless scapegoating, and that the spirit of Der Sturmer lives on in one of its widest circulation dailies.
Le plus c’est change.
Don’t forget to advise your ‘friends’ of the KFA ….
Surely they’ll love a story like this…
Good God! What a wonderful work of generalizing this article does. Not only are the ‘germans’ overall responsible for this article, but all ‘south koreans’ will buy it uncritically… And of course, since it article prinpted in Frankfurter Allgemaine Zeitung speculates about information implying US duplicity, it is categorized as ‘anti-american’ (the search for truth and right to voice opinions must be anti-american, right?). I agree the article does merely speculate, but the US evidence doesn’t seem too conclusive either. Everything isn’t black and white, no matter how bad some US republicans want it to be that way since it demands less in terms of critical thinking. This summary conjures up simplistic enemy images, just as the North Koreans like to portray the US (albeit in an even more extreme manner)
If you liked this post, you’ll love this one:
https://freekorea.us/?p=6351
While you’re there, click the links about North Korea’s supernote operation, which I’m guessing you’ve never really read about. The evidence is quite detailed and compelling, although the only way we’ll ever be sure is if Kim Jong Il lets us tour Printing House Number Six in Pyongsong. Of course, one is always free to choose not to believe it if your emotions predispose you in that direction. Heck, you can believe that Bush and the Jews cooked up 9/11 to evangelize Iraq, or that LBJ killed JFK because he wanted a piece of Jackie O. But when it comes down to offering Shred One of evidence for this theory or the decision to publish it in a major newspaper, even Bender admits that it’s baseless.
Mmmm. Of course we’ll only know with certainty if the DPRK allows us full access, which if course never would happen. And yea, i checked out some posts in more detail. But what I objected to is not really whether North Korea did engage in forgery or not but what I considered to be predispositions on y o u r behalf against Europeans and probably more so against North Korea (and i dont consider myself to be predisposed as u argued)…
America is a great country and has done much for the world, but – as a European – I dont like the aura of rightousness that it (specifically Bush) surround itself with, e.g. references to God (a tendancy which it btw ironically shares with Iran), ‘evil’, and so on. Perhaps this are unavoidable leftovers after having won ww2 and the cold war (which I am glad the US did), but self-criticism is always needed, esp. in a country which portrays itself as a beacon of freedom and democracy (although shockingly few ppl care to vote).
In this case, the US needs to consider what effects its actions has on North Korea. Taking the ‘moral high ground’ as President Bush and denouncing the regime is perfectly understandable, but achievs nothing practically. Instead the DPRK becomes insecure and more takes self-defensive measures. Economic sanctions against North Korea forces it to resort to missile, drug and, yes most probably, counterfeiting to collect desparatly needed revenue. There is a spiral of self-fulfilling profecies here and they are based on an assumption about the nature and intent of the opposing state! E.g. the isolation from the international (financial) community (for instance the US having blocked its applications to the Asian development bank) forces the DPRK to resort to illegal fund raising activities which reinforce the correctness of isolating it in the first place…
This is way the South Korean engagement policy towards the North is quite understandable – it realises the existance of such a spiral and takes the first step.
The US must be more self-critical to realise the existance of such spirals, and see how its actions contributes to creating enemies (whether Iraq, North Korea or whatever). The leaders of North Korea would be genuinly irresponsible and irrational only if they trusted the U.S. – the country which once fought against them (during which the USAF bombed irragation damps, a war crime when done by the nazis in holland), still has not recognized their existance as a state, still has army bases clearly directed against them and continued to describe them as a “tyranny”. Since Kim Jong Il claims to pursue self-reliant policies hostile to outside influences, no wonder why this has an appeal to North Koreans being indoctrinated in the history of invasions against them…
Another ironic example is the logotype used on this site: North Korea looks like a black hole from outerspace, being symbolic of its isolation and oppressive nature. But what does it literally tell us – that North Korea is in desperate need of means to produce electricity, i.e. nuclear power…
That’s funny, because I loathe Europeans for THEIR self-righteousness, and my belief that it’s mostly unjustified.
Wow. We have a lot in common, don’t we?
Ha, I suppose ;-))
But you seem to be getting a bit emotional: I dont loathe Americans (as admittantly some Europeans do). I like the US, I just wish it would mind its own business…There is a clear difference between stopping expansive countries (defending Kuwait, Europe in ww2) and meddeling in the internal affairs of others (Iraq 2003, South America during the Cold war, North Korea).
The differences is nevertheless that Europeans – today – seldom project their self-rightousness outwards as the US does. We’ve, finally, embraced the principle that nations should be the ruler of their own destinies and not be judged against our own the codes of conduct.
Dave, After I read your last paragraph, I laughed so hard my wife came upstairs and gave me the evil eye for waking the kids. Have you forgotten all the exploitive sanctimony we’ve heard over questionable reports about the conditions in which a few hundred mostly hard-core terrorists are being held in Gitmo? I haven’t, and I posit that conditions there are far better than they are for jails or immigration detention centers in France or elsewhere in Europe. And, sticking with the major theme of this site, Europe (like the American press, for that matter) has been pretty much silent about the ACTUAL concentration camps in North Korea. Plenty of Americans shook their heads in dismay — and far more never cared at all — when The Guardian sponsored a trans-Atlantic letter-writing campaign to persuade Pennsylvanians to vote against George Bush, condemned as a nasty SOB by Universal European Acclaim(TM). Bush still won — mostly because Kerry was such an awful candidate — and Europe has dimmed its America-hating hyperbole in the last few years anyway, but Europe … not self-righteous? Next you’ll tell me how great it smells inside Paris subway cars at rush hour. Maybe you can tell me how that fits with your theory of laissez-faire acceptance of each nation choosing its own code of conduct. Maybe we’ve found the European variation on American exceptionalism.
I would accept delivery of Europe’s sanctimony, sign the receipt, and give the delivery man a shiny new penny if it fit within any coherent moral structure that compelled a change in behavior. Unfortunately, “the world,” of which Europe sees itself the arbiter of all things noble and high, lacks the coherence to identify, in basic mathematical terms, where the most people are enslaved by others, and to identify, in basic human terms, where the intensity of the suffering is greatest. Instead, those who write news, mold opinions, and cast votes of absention seem to choose their causes in inverse proportion to where they belong on this basic moral scale: Iraq (except for Al Qaeda bombing markets, beheading hostages, and baking children to serve to their parents), Palestine (except for bus bombers), Gitmo (except for the people inside, some of whom plotted 9/11 or planned God-knows-what-else), Lebanon (except for brutal Hezbollah theocrats), and an occasional finger wagged at China amidst a roaring trade in weapons. The exception to this is Darfur, which has become a public cause, and where the numbers and intensity of persecution truly are great, although the solutions I see offered are lacking. It’s become another of those great leftist causes where the practical plan never seems to move beyond the drum circle phase. A few call for a U.N. force made up from armies they’d never join and which they’d call to bring home if some thug speaking for the “nation” shoots at it.
Unlike you, I don’t believe that “nations should be the ruler of their own destinies and not be judged against our own the codes of conduct.” If YOU believe that, you’re at the wrong site. By saying that the “nation” is the ruler of its own destiny, you’re really suggesting that we legitimize whoever controls the secret police and helicopter gunships, consent of the governed or not. There’s nothing evolutionary or advanced about that moral framework. It’s been around since the days of australopithecus.
Not all peoples are equally advanced in the degree of their preparation for self-government at any given time, so there have to be variations of self-government, but a nation’s people are the best qualified to determine the appropriate “code of conduct,” not you, me, or the General Assembly. If the governed have no voice, the voice of the “nation” is a street thug in a pressed fatigues, a daupin in a Mao suit, or a whooping malodorous loony who wants to hasten the return of the 12th Imam by enriching uranium. If the “nation” abuses his people or threatens his neighbors (our neighborhoods have broadened with the rise of affordable international air travel), other nations have an obligation not to support evil through favorable trade benefits, arms sales, etc. And our obligation goes further: to impose consequences on and deter those who commit atrocities, and to help the oppressed regain the rights that are theirs. Those principles, of course, can’t be completely rigid, and we have to find our intelligence to find the best path to achieving them. Some of those paths are blocked by other compelling interests, which is why you’ve heard nothing but strident opposition from me to suggestions that we invade Darfur or North Korea. But this does not mean that we surrender the promotion of objective, comparative, and quantifiable standards of how people ought to treat each other. When we kiss the rings of thugs, we license oppression, and we condescend to the oppressed by offering them counterfeit deference to their ventriloquized “will,” while denying them by proxy the rights we think we ourselves are good enough to enjoy.
I assume Dave believes the EU member states are withdrawing from the UN, closing down The Hague, dropping out of the International Criminal Court, and closing participation in all sorts of similar institutions….
Very interesting exchange here. I think Joshua is gonna win this on points. I think Dave has to be aware that the dichotomy of Europe’s ‘high morals’ translates these days also as ‘indecisiveness’ and plain cowardice – especially whilst facing the terror threat. America may not be perfect, but the country is more prepared to take action and call a spade a spade. Unfortunately America isn’t too blessed at the moment with its president but that will change soon which is the beauty of checks and balances – (which is another thing the Europeans are desperately short of).
Sorry for the intrusion in your argument !
For one, I dont sympathize much with EU immigration policy which indeed could be much more humane. On the other hand, Guatanamo can hardly be considered very humane either. Contrary to what you seem to imply, i happen to belief that even hard core terrorists have the right to a fair trial and treatment which Guantanamo does not provide. Too often critical Europeans compare the US to some kind of utopia, so no wonder they see so many faults…
Leaving aside how the existance of Guantanamo seems to contradict your – indeed justified – concern for human rights in the DPRK, my point is rather on the level of states / IR: the respect for other countries sovereignty is the sole common denominator among the states of the world and if we start to question that principle we’d have a lot of wars going on.
The fact that destastable human rights abuses occur in North Korea should not mean that they have lost their right to control their own destiny as a collective (i.e. that the US has the right to invade). Indeed the paradox is that the more the US feels so, the more frightened the DPRK becomes and the more justified Kim Jong Il’s brutal and isolated regime seems to its citizens.
oh, just saw TellTells comment there. Opinions are always welcome! Sorry to hear that I’m loosing though 😉
Yes, you’re right the EU is too indecisive but the US is too prone to take action. Checks and balances are a great thing, but we need them on a global level too as was evidenced by the failiure on Iraq.
Now by previous argument above should be complemented with one more point: the US is not just insufficiently self-critical but also insufficiently sensitive to cultural differences in its foreign policy. ‘Freedom’ may sound just great to the american electorare (which of course matters to incumbent), but it might mean something quite different to an Iraqi or North Korean. I’m not implying that any North Korean actually considers being thrown in a camp freedom, only that they might value other things which americans dont e.g. guaranteed jobs (even if their directing non-existant traffic!), group harmony and so on…
Indeed, in the part of the world where confucian culture has been predominant (East-Asia particularly) the only current democracies are those that have been imposed (Japan and ROK). At least as far a I know…
If read somewhere that Hillary Clinton referred to the US alliance rift towards South Korea as “historical amnesia”, but for crying out loud, isnt it amnesia for South Korea to be indifferent to the 2000 years of common history they have with the North! Why could not the Bush administration see that President Roh did not want to consider military option against North Korea because it would essentially put brothers fighting brothers. Perhaps the different history of Korea and the US is part of the explanation: Korea being a genuine nation-state (having common culture, ethniticity, language) whilst the US rather is a state-nation (constructed upon a common ideology of liberal democracy instead)…
Again, disregard of cultural differences…
Dave, when you can’t see the difference between immigrants and terrorists (not soldiers – per Geneva Convention standards), I guess you can’t distinguish much useful in the world.
When you get to where you can’t tell the difference between North Korean citizens in concentration camps and the most despotic regime in the world from those same non-standard fighters taken in a war held in humane conditions, then I am sure you have virtually no clue what is humane and inhumane.
But, you are helping me remember stereotypes of European-think I had started to forget….
Please, who brought up the comparison with EU immigration centers. I didnt, as you will see if u read above…
Now this will be my final comment (I wrote one earlier but somehow it didnt get through).
Checks and balances is a great thing, but its desparatly needed on a global level too. The US is not just more blatant in its statements (calling a spade a spade) but too quick to act too. In a better world, where the US was more self-critical and not just guided by conceptions of good and evil, with us or against us, it wouldn’t have attacked Iraq on completly FALSE grounds (thats what the best financed intelligence agency on the world can do for ya!). Can you then with good concience expect the world to believe accusations about a HEU program in North Korea!?
I was never intent on arguing about domestic politics in the US or EU, but merely foreign policy. Now how is Europe hypocritical in its FP (whether on EU-level or national level)??
As a response to Joshuas comments about seeing the greater evil. Does that US do that in its foreign policy? No, the US reacts when its sees its percieved interests threatened as most countries do. Just think about Rwanda… Thats way I am sceptical when such notions are used in foreign policy; there is always a self-interest below them.
An example of the US insensitivity to cultural differenses is:
Why could not Bush understand that President Roh wanted to rule out the military option against North Korea??
Whilst Korea is a genuine nation-state with common history, culture, language, ethniticity (making it disurbing to pin brothers against brothers in a war) the USA is a state-nation constructed upon a common ideology of liberal democracy. The US is rather a state-nation, originally consisting out of immigrants, constructed out of common IDEAS rather than tangible commonalities such as ethniticity. Because of such cultural differences Bush assumed that ideology should take precedence over nationality.
But what you fail to realise that even a the idea of “democracy” has a moral framework which might not be natural to all the peoples of the world (although I am of course basically on the same ground as you: on a practical level, it delivers best!). How come that in East Asia, a region where confucian traditions have left a distinct cultural legacy, never has seen a liberal democracy that wasnt somehow imposed from the outside or grew out of prolonged western dominance?? Isnt it a fact that such societies promote group harmony over conflicts, and emphazises the role of the individual in the society (contrary to the individualistic US) and thus promotes a more organic view of society that might not always be compatible with a western style democracy (which always departs from the rights of the individual). Now how is self-determination to be construed in that context??
Similarly, the US has no understanding for freedom construed in a positive way. I.e. you percieve freedom mostly as “freedom from xxx” whilst other cultures may percieve freedom as “freedom to xxx” e.g. education, guaranteed jobs and so on .
The ideas you think everyone shares with you, in fact have limits!
Thus the question becomes who will be the one to define the rights josh talks about: “to impose consequences on and deter those who commit atrocities, and to help the oppressed regain the rights that are theirs”. Its a very appealing idealistic statement and anyone in their right mind would feel the need to concur.
But it is not self-evident in any way what rights you talks about here. And in reality when someone is opressed somewhere, someone from another place will have to liberate him, but he will only do so out of HIS understanding of such rights. Unfortunatly, in the real world the saviour is at liberty to freely interpret this and effectively designate himself a saviour whenever he likes to. Hence, the need for self-criticism. Unfortunalty, what counts in the end is always who’s got the bigger stick and not the moral imperative.
And by the way, if we should impose consequences on those who commit atrocities why is the US so reluctant to accepte the international warcrime tribunals?? Isnt that paradox self-rightous or what?
Many of the counterarguments I see here shows a great tendency to over-generalize, which I btw find kind of symptomatic for your entire positions. But I suppose one of the reasons I have a hard time getting through is that (or so I understood from the ‘about’ section) you have been a military man yourself. Hence, you are in a sense defending the ostensible purpose of your own career and your own identity (predispositions, my friend).
oh well, however laughable or stupid you think my opinions are (and they might not be representative for Europeans) I at least urge you not to use stereotypes about Europeans or anyone else (‘Soft Reich’ come on!), cause if there is anything in this world which causes trouble it is such p r e d i s p o s i t i o n s: whether those of North Koreans against americans, those of paletinians against jews, those of nazis against jews or those of americans against europeans. They all belong to the same breed and result in the same hostility.
I will leave you will this quote about the dialectics between power (which the US has a lot of) and morality:
“The strongest is never strong enough to be always the master, unless he transforms strength into right, and obedience into duty (Jean-Jacques Rousseau in The Social Contract)”
All the best from Europe!
PS. I still love America, and hope I’ll get to see Washington DC someday…
Peace Out!
not everyone in South Korea percieve themselves to be free,
not everyone in North Korea percieve themselves to be slaves
Dammit by comments get lost when I try to upload them… Perhaps too long, I’ll divide them…
Please, who brought up the comparison with EU immigration centers. I didnt, as you will see if u read above…
Now this will be my final comment (I wrote one earlier but somehow it didnt get through).
Checks and balances is a great thing, but its desparatly needed on a global level too. The US is not just more blatant in its statements (calling a spade a spade) but too quick to act too. In a better world, where the US was more self-critical and not just guided by conceptions of good and evil, with us or against us, it wouldn’t have attacked Iraq on completly FALSE grounds (thats what the best financed intelligence agency on the world can do for ya!). Can you then with good concience expect the world to believe accusations about a HEU program in North Korea!?
I was never intent on arguing about domestic politics in the US or EU, but merely foreign policy. Now how is Europe hypocritical in its FP (whether on EU-level or national level)??
As a response to Joshuas comments about seeing the greater evil. Does that US do that in its foreign policy?
No, the US reacts when its sees its percieved interests threatened as most countries do. Just think about Rwanda… Thats way I am sceptical when such notions are used in foreign policy; there is always a self-interest below them.
An example of the US insensitivity to cultural differenses is:
Why could not Bush understand that President Roh wanted to rule out the military option against North Korea??
Whilst Korea is a genuine nation-state with common history, culture, language, ethniticity (making it disurbing to pin brothers against brothers in a war) the USA is a state-nation constructed upon a common ideology of liberal democracy. The US is rather a state-nation, originally consisting out of immigrants, constructed out of common IDEAS rather than tangible commonalities such as ethniticity. Because of such cultural differences Bush assumed that ideology should take precedence over nationality.
But what you fail to realise that even a the idea of “democracy†has a moral framework which might not be natural to all the peoples of the world (although I am of course basically on the same ground as you: on a practical level, it delivers best!). How come that in East Asia, a region where confucian traditions have left a distinct cultural legacy, never has seen a liberal democracy that wasnt somehow imposed from the outside or grew out of prolonged western dominance?? Isnt it a fact that such societies promote group harmony over conflicts, and emphazises the role of the individual in the society (contrary to the individualistic US) and thus promotes a more organic view of society that might not always be compatible with a western style democracy (which always departs from the rights of the individual). Now how is self-determination to be construed in that context??
Similarly, the US has no understanding for freedom construed in a positive way. I.e. you percieve freedom mostly as “freedom from xxx†whilst other cultures may percieve freedom as “freedom to xxx†e.g. education, guaranteed jobs, health care and so on .
The ideas you think everyone shares with you, in fact have limits!
Thus the question becomes who will be the one to define the rights josh talks about: “to impose consequences on and deter those who commit atrocities, and to help the oppressed regain the rights that are theirsâ€. Its a very appealing idealistic statement and anyone in their right mind would feel the need to concur.
But it is not self-evident in any way what rights you talks about here. And in reality when someone is opressed somewhere, someone from another place will have to liberate him, but he will only do so out of HIS understanding of such rights. Unfortunatly, in the real world the saviour is at liberty to freely interpret this and effectively designate himself a saviour whenever he likes to. Hence, the need for self-criticism. Unfortunalty, what counts in the end is always who’s got the bigger stick and not the moral imperative.
And by the way, if we should impose consequences on those who commit atrocities why is the US so reluctant to accepte the international warcrime tribunals?? Isnt that paradox self-rightous or what?
Many of the counterarguments I see here shows a great tendency to over-generalize, which I btw find kind of symptomatic for your entire positions. But I suppose one of the reasons I have a hard time getting through is that (or so I understood from the ‘about’ section) you have been a military man yourself. Hence, you are in a sense defending the ostensible purpose of your own career and your own identity (predispositions, my friend).
oh well, however laughable or stupid you think my opinions are (and they might not be representative for Europeans) I at least urge you not to use stereotypes about Europeans or anyone else (‘Soft Reich’ come on!), cause if there is anything in this world which causes trouble it is such p r e d i s p o s i t i o n s: whether those of North Koreans against americans, those of paletinians against jews, those of nazis against jews or those of americans against europeans. They all belong to the same breed and result in the same hostility.
I will leave you will this quote about the dialectics between power (which the US has a lot of) and morality:
“The strongest is never strong enough to be always the master, unless he transforms strength into right, and obedience into duty (Jean-Jacques Rousseau in The Social Contract)â€
All the best from Europe!
PS. I still love America, and hope I’ll get to see Washington DC someday…
Peace Out!
Many of the counterarguments I see here shows a great tendency to over-generalize, which I btw find kind of symptomatic for your entire positions. But I suppose one of the reasons I have a hard time getting through is that (or so I understood from the ‘about’ section) you have been a military man yourself. Hence, you are in a sense defending the ostensible purpose of your own career (predispositions, my friend).
oh well, however laughable or stupid you think my opinions are (and they might not be representative for Europeans) I at least urge you not to use stereotypes about Europeans or anyone else (‘Soft Reich’ come on!), cause if there is anything in this world which causes trouble it is such p r e d i s p o s i t i o n s: whether those of North Koreans against americans, those of paletinians against jews, those of nazis against jews or those of americans against europeans. They all belong to the same breed and result in the same hostility.
I will leave you will this quote about the dialectics between power (which the US has a lot of) and morality:
“The strongest is never strong enough to be always the master, unless he transforms strength into right, and obedience into dutyâ€
All the best from Europe!
PS. I still love America,
Peace Out!
usinkorea… Is it that wiered to compare terrorists, immigrants and enslaved North Koreans. Isnt the entire idea that human rights are supposed to be U N I V E R S A L??
Dave, sometimes my spam filter acts up. Let me check and restore any comments you posted. My apologies if that happened. Fundamentally, I think courage does little for you if you only direct it at people who won’t bomb your trains. We’re not going to agree, but thanks for a good argument. Here’s a small gesture of thanks for that:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM
PS.: I note, however, that “Dave” and “Steve” have the same IP address. Definitely not cool.
Dave,
You brought up a comparison of immigrants with the type of people held in Cuba and with North Korean citizens.
And thanks to Joshua noting the same IP, I take it Stave is back peddling on striking at the US for trying to apply universal values.
Joshua,
Is the IP located in the islands of Hawaii by any chance?
I’ll refrain from continuing addressing points in the debate due to the IP fact and the hopelessness of it all…
Man dont always assume the worst. i argued with my brother about the same issues, and he wanted to leave a comment too…
all the best and thanks for your arguments too…
good video LOL, but here a good one too
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igGHmQ3Pwjo