this post was submitted on 04 Dec 2024
54 points (98.2% liked)

No Stupid Questions

42649 readers
822 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

From what I understand, the military high command supported Yoon even after the assembly voted down martial law. If that's true, didn't he have everything to go through with the coup?

all 25 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] odium@programming.dev 80 points 8 months ago (3 children)

The high command might have been on Yoon's side, but the soldiers on the ground were not. The high command can't do shit if no one will follow their orders.

Soldiers were ordered to surround the Parliament and prevent a vote to end martial law. Yet the soldiers who were at the Parliament refused to fire upon or physically stop the politicians.

[–] PhrygianFudge@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Couldn't that have been just because of the immediate confusion and indecision about escalating by the lower unit commanders?

There could have been infighting in the military, but he surely would have had quite some support, no? Why not take the chance if he already commited to imposing martial law?

Edit: sorry if it came across like I support the guy. I don't. I'm just interested in sociology and politics. If you downvote me, could you explain what I'm getting wrong?

[–] ultranaut@lemmy.world 11 points 8 months ago

Infighting in the military is a significant escalation on the path towards a civil war. The chance for the coup to have any appearance of legitimacy was lost very quickly so it was either take that risk or back down. Ideally for a coup to succeed you have these details sorted and a plan in place to seize control before you start the coup, but that doesn't seem to be the case here so backing down was the only realistic choice.

[–] Mango@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago

Score one for humanity!

[–] philpo@feddit.org 7 points 8 months ago

There are dozens of photos that most of the military unit who were active at the parliament did not have magazines in their guns and often had blue training guns in their holsters or blue training pins in their assault rifles.

This is nothing you do by accident - especially not in a highly qualified military like the SK military. It is a very good way of making sure that for starters none does something stupid like kill a MP, but also to show other units (and people) that you are not really on the side of whoever commanded you to do what you do. And it mak sure you look favorable in court if things turn against you.

Considering that this was not a singular occurrence but happened amongst all types of units someone has ordered them/coordinatated this.

How high up that was? Who knows. But it was a pretty strong sign, especially towards other units.

Who knows, in theory it could also be a valid scenario that the military was "faking support" to motivate Yoon,knowing that he will be impeached after that.

[–] horse_battery_staple@lemmy.world 24 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Are you asking how Yoon could have had a better coup?

[–] PhrygianFudge@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I don't support him, if that's what you're asking. I'm just curious about sociology and politics. :)

[–] horse_battery_staple@lemmy.world 13 points 8 months ago (1 children)

It's absolutely too early to say what support he had or thought he had.

[–] PhrygianFudge@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 8 months ago (1 children)

He didn't really know for sure, either, I don't think. That's why it's weird to me that he just 'surrendered'. Was what happened completely legal this way? Can he not go to prison?

[–] horse_battery_staple@lemmy.world 9 points 8 months ago (1 children)

It's absolutely too early to say. The SK courts will bear this out. Anything you'd hear in this forum or the news is just conjecture.

[–] PhrygianFudge@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 8 months ago

True. I'm not taking any takes here to be definitely true. I was just interested in other people's perspectives until we get a proper response. :)

[–] massive_bereavement@fedia.io -1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I looked at the username. Just in case.

[–] PhrygianFudge@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Sorry, not that well-versed in the ecosystem here yet. What could my username have meant?

[–] massive_bereavement@fedia.io 10 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I meant just in case it was something like "Yoon_the_coon420" or something like that.

[–] PhrygianFudge@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Ah, I see. I thought there was a community of infamous South Korean conservatives or something.

edit: typo

[–] einkorn@feddit.org 16 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Imho no. Apparently (I have not dealt with South Korean politics before this) he was quite unpopular to beginn with. Blatantly disregarding the elected parlament would have destroyed any resemblance of a "lawful" takeover and might have provoked protest from all parts of society.

Also afaik saying he lifted martial law after the assembly vote is wrong in the sense that martial law was lifted by the assembly already. Pressing on would have put him in breach of the constitution. Of course he probably couldn't care less but keeping the appearance of still being a democracy is import. Most autocracy's nowadays work this way. People get to choose but the guy on top gets to pick the options.

[–] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 12 points 8 months ago (2 children)

People get to choose but the guy on top gets to pick the options.

Managed Democracy!

[–] A_Union_of_Kobolds@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago

If the people voted by filling out Facebook quizzes

[–] skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 8 months ago

Maybe he didn't? Power was on in parliament entire time, internet wasn't cut off, no curfew, no news stations takeover, you know things you can expect in a coup didn't happen

[–] SomeAmateur@sh.itjust.works -1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Knowing nothing about anything it almost seems like the mindset of a person who survives a suicide attempt where they realize the gravity of their decision only after they make it