One example is North Korea’s Foreign Minister’s statement on Saturday. Various news sources, including the Washington Post, merely state in the headline that he said an attack on the US mainland was ‘inevitable’. Most English-speakers take ‘inevitable’ to mean something that’s unavoidable under any circumstances, with no room for variation. However, the actual context of the remarks is a little different:

> Due to his lacking of basic common knowledge and proper sentiment, he tried to insult the supreme dignity of my country by referring it to a rocket. By doing so, however, he committed an irreversible mistake of making our rockets’ visit to the entire U.S. mainland inevitable all the more.

> None other than Trump himself is on a suicide mission.

> In case innocent lives of the U.S. are lost because of this suicide attack. Trump will be held totally responsible.

Note that the entire translation is in broken English, including referring to Kim Jong Un as “it” and translating “rocket man” into “rocket.” It sounds like he means “even more likely”, as there is really no such thing as “inevitable all the more.” He also says “in case innocent lives are lost”, again, indicating that such an attack is not really inevitable. In other parts of the speech he talks about North Korea’s nuclear weapons as being self-defensive, but this doesn’t get any play.

Overall I notice the media tends to play up the most aggressive and context-free interpretations of North Korea’s statements.

View Reddit by orek74View Source

Pres. Trump can bluster about blowing NK off the map, but the reality is that he has no clue how alliances might shift or already be in place or what interest certain countries might decide they have in opposing the US. Perhaps there’s a reason that Kim Jong Un speaks in a way that sounds overly confident.

Can you envision alliances forming that counter what we currently see on the surface? Motivations? Long-term interests?

This article describes China’s position as dependent on the nature of the conflict. China would support NK if the US attempts regime change, but otherwise would not support NK.

*The Global Times, a newspaper that often expresses Chinese government views, editorialized last month that China would not help North Korea if the U.S. retaliated against a North Korean missile attack. However, it also warned that “if the U.S. and South Korea carry out strikes and try to overthrow the North Korean regime and change the political pattern of the Korean peninsula, China will prevent them from doing so.”*

View Reddit by AriD2385View Source

The Sumatran rainforests of Indonesia are home to the Orang Rimba. Their faith and nomadic way of life are not recognised by the state and, as their forests are destroyed to make way for palm oil plantations, many are being forced to convert to Islam to survive.

View Reddit by yesthislowView Source

I am 20 years old and therefore have not been alive for any of the major conflicts of the last century. I have read opinions stating that a war with North Korea would be unlike any conflict we have seen so far in the 20th century and I have been curious about how my life might be impacted if this were to happen (be it through economic means, etc). Thoughts?

View Reddit by Smoothie928View Source

A replica of a Pyongyang apartment was created by the Seoul Biennale by the firm Praud. Although it’s a ‘high class’ residence, you can get a glimpse of domestic life. Here’s a view from the apartment’s balcony.

View Reddit by jh0stView Source

Delhi pollution: Choppers can’t battle smog — because of smog: Aerially sprinkling water over the city so pollutants can settle is not possible due to low visibility says national helicopter carrier.

View Reddit by green_flashView Source

when you’re the #1 best nation in the world and have only gone to war for noble reasons and have never had any foreign policy disasters and will always be globally envied for your courage and righteousness and definitely-not-tiny penis

View Reddit by nosubscriptionView Source