North Korea's Official Statement

The FBI argument is that they are the culprit because the attack was similar to the attack on south korea.

So they are denying both attacks.

MacArthur publicly stated dropping nuclear weapons on the northern border of the Korean peninsula to prevent the Chinese hordes from invading was necessary to secure peace in the Korean peninsula. Truman fired him because the long-term strategy the US had with the Chinese had a threshold of military conflict that MacArthur was far surpassing. Truman and the strategists involved believed the conflict with the Chinese had to remain on the Korean peninsula. They believed MacArthur's plans to drop nuclear weapons on the Chinese side of the Korean border would escalate the conflict to a point of becoming an uncontrollable conflict in the region.

Somebody more knowledgeable than me can elaborate on this, but in a nutshell he was an american general during the Korean War, who had a sort of aggressive diplomatic and military stance (he wanted to nuke North Korea in 1951, too) and was relieved by Truman.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_MacArthur

In short, the UN forces were able to drive North Korean forces out of South Korea. They then began advancing into North Korea. At this point China entered the war (under the guise of the PVA) on the side of the North Koreans, which was not something which had been anticipated. This resulted in several defeats, and the UN forces being pushed back towards the prewar boundary. MacArthur wanted the option to expand the scope of the war by using nuclear weapons against North Korea and northern China, which Truman didn't want because he was afraid that doing so would mean full-scale war against China and the USSR, and possibly an invasion of Europe by the latter while the US was tied down in Asia. The Wikipedia links posted by some of the other users make for interesting reading.

It should also be noted that North Korea, while the instigator of the war and a Communist country, was in a very different position in the 1950s. It was a richer country than South Korea until the 1970s, and South Korea at the time was an American-backed military dictatorship. While there may have been a moral argument to roll back Communism as far as possible, Truman's concerns about the geopolitical implications of expanding the war were very real, and calling them cowardice is a rather crude mischaracterization.

MacArthur is possibly one of the finest generals in American history. But while he's widely beloved across Asia for his work in Japan and especially the Philippines, his American legacy is tarnished after Truman publicly disgraced him for threatening China with war after Chinese troops had overrun American forces in Korea.

The Chinese intervention in Korea was overwhelming, and Americans were forced to retreat -- and considered evacuating the peninsula altogether. MacArthur, fresh from Japan and the Philippines, was determined to save Korea from its modern fate and threatened China with war if they would not withdraw from what is now North Korea.

Truman had already significantly interfered with MacArthur's prosecution of the war, and eventually relieved him entirely when he felt MacArthur was too provocative. That led to the use of North Korea as a Chinese buffer state, much as Stalin used Eastern Europe, and to the situation we have today.

It's one of the worst blunders in the history of American foreign policy. Now, not only is North Korea a paranoid dictatorship with more than enough conventional arms to reduce South Korea to rubble within hours, they're armed with nuclear weapons and increasingly hostile even to their Chinese sponsors.

Since I identify as mostly liberal, I always defaulted to a defense of Truman. But I was wrong. Truman's failure should have stained his legacy, not MacArthur's. And for exactly the same reasons I outlined, MENA states dominated by fundamentalist Islam must not be allowed to gain nuclear weapons. Rogue states and lunatics have ruined too many lives to be protected by a kneejerk fear of war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_Truman's_relief_of_Ge...

I agree partially with you. And to add to that. The probable problem with the US approach to this is the "rate of change" ("probable" because it is too hard to call it anything more, since this is world affairs we are talking, we can't talk loosely)

Spreading freedom is right, and I can see the good side of US authorities in this. I imagine there might be lot of people living in North Korea under medieval set of freedoms (but we all lived through that and is it that bad?).

But people can't open up easily, even if you are trying to help them. It takes time. If we want NK to come to terms with upholding human rights, we need to give them time. While at the same time pushing them a bit as well. Sometimes I wonder if that is what is happening. US the lash, Russia/China the console. If that is so, then the culprit is neither US or NK or Russia, but us, for over-reacting in certain senses.

For example, in the above translation there is a line: "all war spaces including cyber warfare space to blow up those citadels."

I think the above line was for 'biased or mistaken/unbiased' reasons miss-quoted/translated by some in the US media, as 'North Korea threatens to blow up US buildings'(creating unnecessary tension based on the events of 9/11). Instead it might have meant "breaking a nexus". But anyways, quite a few media outlets ran that story. And I guess, to some extent the comedic approach to North Korea is thus needed. But that should not mean disgracing its leader directly. Tease but don't Touch!

Korea, of all places, is possibly the most crystal-clear example of the success of American intervention. The unparalleled success of South Korea is a direct contrast to the horror of North Korea.

Perhaps I shouldn't say unparalleled -- Germany succeeded under American guidance, as did Japan despite a radically different culture and people. There was a time when we could rebuild countries successfully.

Notably, of course, Germany was full of Germans and Korea was full of Koreans. Cultural values allowed these countries to succeed, just as they ensure the failure of secular states in the Middle East. I don't advocate intervention everywhere -- and I think it's idiotic to try to set up democracies, even puppet ones, in countries hostile to essential Western values -- but the success of South Korea displays the huge loss the world has suffered from the Communist domination of North Korea.

It's simplistic to declare that "there is a zero chance war will result in any good." We sacrificed American lives to save Europe and much of East Asia from hellish regimes, and those were the right calls. It would have been the right call to save Korea as well. War hasn't helped Afghanistan -- because nothing will help Afghanistan -- but we used to have the wisdom to know when intervention was worth the cost.

Law and order are everyone's problem. Why should the North Korean government be allowed to torture, imprison and enslave large parts of its nation with impunity? These things are international crimes (as are many actions of the CIA and the IDF, incidentally) and everyone in every country should be clamouring for justice for civilians attacked by their, or someone else's, governments.

Well, the US never seemed to be bothered with that moral conundrum when it came to Iraq (no WMDs, did not cause 9/11, mind you) or Afghanistan.

thanks

You mean Genius

This !

Not new but very very rare to include current leaders

http://time.com/3640774/the-interview-sony-north-korea-movie...