Why Kim Jong-un probably didn't feed his naked uncle to 120 dogs

This story has been on ATS a couple of times and I just can't quite buy it. I'm trying to imagine 300 people sitting around watching Kim's uncle being mauled to death by a pack of hungry dogs 'Roman coliseum' style.

I would be the first to accuse Kim of inhumanities, but this just doesn't seem to ring true.

The story was first reported by a minor Hong Kong outlet on December 12, was picked up by a Singaporean newspaper on December 24 and since late Thursday has been sweeping through nearly every corner of the media. The only problem is that it's probably – probably – not true.

"Crazy-sounding stories happen with some frequency in North Korea, where the government has a well-earned reputation for taking political punishments to medieval extremes."

Here are some sane reasons why this probably didn't occur:

1. The story originated in a Hong Kong newspaper called Wen Wei Po, which oddly makes the claim without citing a source. With a couple of high-quality exceptions, Hong Kong media have a reputation for sensationalist and tabloidy stories that do not always turn out to be true. Recently, this Hong Kong newspaper ranked 19 out ot 21 newspapers as being credible.

2. Although this story first appeared in China, no other source locally has touched this story. The rest of China's media maintain that Kim's uncle was executed by being shot.

3. Apparently, too, the South Korean media has also not picked up on this story.

4. The Asian media in general seems to be ignoring this story even though it has been around for a few weeks in China.

5.

...the predominant story of what happened is much more plausible. It's not as though we're operating completely in the dark about Jang's execution. Far more credible outlets with far more credible sourcing have consistently described Jang as having been executed by firing squad; typically he is said to have been killed by anti-aircraft guns, though sometimes that is rounded down to machine guns. This is just much more consistent with what we know about North Korea. "He was in a military tribunal so it seems logical he would be executed by firing squad," O'Carroll said.

The fact that South Korea's better-sourced and more credible media outlets continue to maintain that Jang was executed by firing squad, and not by 120 hungry dogs, as reported by a lone Hong Kong newspaper, should really underscore which version of events is more likely.

For more details
Source:
www.theage.com.au...

You must be one of those commie lovers, next youll be saying the story was made up to influence public opinion and get the world prepped for an attack on Nth Korea.

I bet your one of those people that doesnt believe Iraq had WMD's

(just in case anyone missed it, the above is sarcasm, I thought the 120 dogs story was dodgy as well)

reply to post by IkNOwSTuff


I'm more concerned about all these dog stories going around at the moment.
What are they up to.

reply to post by IkNOwSTuff


Good stuff

reply to post by pandersway


The DPRK is a dark - DARK - place. BUT... I too had issues believing this. My problem with it has nothing to do with Little Kim not being cra cra enough to do such a thing but a more practical matter.

Now, I've had dogs. I have one now. Everyone in my family has dogs, some more than they should have at one time... I know how dogs act. You take 120 HUNGRY canines. Assuming you kept them in separate cages while starving them for three days (cuz if you didn't, the stronger ones would be feeding on the weaker ones), you then release them into one larger cage containing one disfavored uncle. Said disfavored uncle only has so much surface area. Only maybe 5 or 6 of these famished pups could really feed on that most forbidden of meats, human tartar. This leaves a large group of starving dogs with nothing to chomp on while a few are feeding right in front of them. They will start feeding on each other. The dogs feeding on the uncle (who is no real threat to these dogs) would at some point turn to face the other dogs (a threat) who will soon be feeding on them. At that point they'd no longer be feeding on disfavored uncle.

While I've tried really hard to describe what I think would happen, you can see it's confusing. That's indicative of what a Charlie Foxtrot this whole thing would be to set up, manage and pull off.

reply to post by 35Foxtrot


Agreed, I don't know that much about dogs, but it seems more like a scene out of a Roger Corman movie than a feasible occurrence.

if they had the taste of human blood already, they would probably scavenge an already dead corpse. but eaten alive? that's the job for a school of piranahs. that would have to be something they would have to put in the next faces of death volume for me to say it probably happened

Dogs are a domesticated animal and most (I said most but certainly not all) do not bite man. Even the ones who shamefully are trained to fight won't kill man . Just sayin. It's even hard to train them to kill each other although we know it's done. It takes an especially cruel hand to turn a dog into a killer. Guard dogs are not trained to kill. They are trained to seek and detain.

reply to post by AutumnWitch657


hitlers german shepards were trained to kill on command

What so you call a Korean with more than two dogs?.....A farmer! Move over Tyson foods, lil' Kimi's movin in.

reply to post by w8tn4it


a fast runner with fish in his pockets

rockoperawriter
reply to post by AutumnWitch657

 

hitlers german shepards were trained to kill on command

lol what? Because they were a special kind of uber nazi german sheppard with their dna specially altered and manipulated down in underground laboratories by evil nazi master minds and geniuses led by one Dr Johann Schmidt who was working on the Uber Soldat programme but he decided to test it first on the german sheppards - yezz yezzzz now zee vorld vill be crushed ünder zee brrutal vist und sheer powah ov zee ssird reich muhahaHAHAHA!

Oh god...

In my best Maxwell Smart voice

"Would you believe 87 angry Hamsters?"