446
Kor(ule)ea
(files.catbox.moe)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 04 Dec 2024
446 points (97.9% liked)
196
16749 readers
1854 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Okay but you also need to acknowledge they rolled out with all of their gear. If they truly supported this then some staffer with a fire extinguisher would not have stopped them. This has all the energy of malicious compliance.
Strongly disagree. I see no evidence to believe that's what it is.
Just because the military was engaged, doesn't mean that they were told it's no holds barred. Even riot police suppressing violent protests don't typically just turn a machine gun on the protestors. They would have had rules of engagement that prevented them from escalating too far. And possibly, yes, a personal reticence on the part of the soldiers directly involved in it and their immediate superiors to escalate in a way that would cause irreparable harm, but even that is categorically different from "malicious compliance" where the goal is to only do the bare minimum that would not get them in trouble for disobeying orders. Instead it's more like do the most they think they can without causing a huge scandal about their own actions.
You have a contradiction. You admit they may have had an extremely restrictive ROE, but ignore what that means about military buy in for their orders. That's something the officers would impose to maliciously comply with the president's orders. "The President has ordered you to occupy Parliament and secure the building from ministers and staff. Your commander requires that you do this without hurting anyone, the most you may do is to give verbal commands."
No matter which way you cut it, if they had believed in it those staffers would be dead or in detainment and the legislators wouldn't have made it within a mile of the place.
Not necessarily. I think it's quite unreasonable to interpret it any other way than that the President presumably wouldn't want Koreans mass shooting Koreans, especially elected politicians. The level of force they used is pretty much what I would expect of normal compliance with the orders and their presumed spirit, given what seems to be a lack of detail.
That's ridiculous. I'm sorry but you've obviously never been around military culture.