My recent exchange with a TIer and a Jap apologist
	Post Reply Forum

Khan

03/29/2016, 19:31:14

Author Profile | Edit

on The Economist forum:

===================

http://www.economist.com/comment/3074931#comment-3074931

ý@ýýýýH in reply to betelnut310

[betelnut310 in reply to guest-smmejel1 min ago

Looks like some of the edits did not take.

The issue here is whether a successor state has a right to territory of a predecessor state despite not ever controlling such territories and the answer is a firm no.]

It DOES, Nuttie. the PRC, being the successor state of the ROC, DID take the territory from the ROC on the mainland!!! So, DID the ROC took the territory from the Qing. Can you do a little thinking before your fingers pounce on the keyboard of your computer?

[PRC may be a successor state to the ROC and the Manchu Empire, but it has no right to all territories held by these entities. Much like the Russian Federation, as a successor state to the USSR and Czarist Russia, does not have rights to the multiple former Soviet Republics. Turkey is a successor state to the Ottoman Empire, but has no rights to most of Middle East previously held by the Ottomans. ]

The PRC, or the Russian Federation, does have that right if it can impose its rule either through peaceful means or by force.

[A precedence that would allow unilateral annexation of territory a country has never had possession of simply because it is a successor state would create chaos in the world order.]

The world had faced far far chaos in the World Wars. So, what? The world will have to deal with it.

[Sovereignty comes from the people, not from recognition. Taiwan's lack of recognition in the world comes directly from China's persistent bullying and oppression, what a fantastic way to alienate and ensuring permanent separation of the two countries.]

"Political power grows out of the barrel of the gun". In the white world, they call it "Might makes right", not bullying.

"The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion (to which few members of other civilizations were converted) but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do. "

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Samuel_P._Huntington

[Chinese civil war ceased to be a civil war with the establishment of the PRC, an independent sovereign. You can say the war between the PRC and ROC are still continuing, but it ain't a civil war anymore as the ROC is no longer part of China, instead it is now fully representative of the Taiwanese people and the Taiwanese nation.]

Your mother is still your mother even after you have grown up, got married and become independent. And you both still belong to the SAME family, which is link by your biological history which you can never shake off.

[The PRC may have set out to destroy and overthrow the ROC, but the fact on the ground was the creation of an independent sovereign out of a previous independent sovereign when such state was still in existence, that is essentially de facto secession. ]

The whole point of PRC's revolution is to destroy the ROC and to take its place. The fact on the ground is that it is STILL committed to that cause. There can only be a "secession" if the one that "created of an independent sovereign out of a previous independent sovereign" is satisfied with owning only part of the territory and its people, but the PRC has made clear that what it wants is an entire revolution and NOT a possession.

[You just can't get over the fact that the creator of the current two independent sovereign states on the ground was the PRC from the very beginning. Name calling and condescending comments only further point out the weakness of your arguments.]

The ROC was also "the creator of the current two independent sovereign states on the ground that was the Qing from the very beginning" but it DIDN'T affect the ROC sovereignty over mainland China AND Taiwan. So, why should it exclude Taiwan to the PRC???

Devil's

==================

http://www.economist.com/comment/3074901#comment-3074901

ý@ýýýýH in reply to betelnut310

[betelnut310 in reply to guest-smmejelMar 25th, 13:25

Of course the Manchu had internationally recognized sovereignty over Taiwan. Just like the Ottomans had internationally recognized sovereignty over the entire Middle East.

PRC is not the Manchus! It is a completely different country. Much like Turkey of today is no Ottomans.

They are both Successor states. And successor states DO NOT have rights to predecessor state territories in whole.]

The ROC, or whatever name you want to change it into, is NOT the Manchus either. So, by you logic, it canNOT have "internationally recognized sovereignty over Taiwan"!!!

By the way, Manchuria is now part of PRC. Since "the Manchu had internationally recognized sovereignty over Taiwan", then Taiwan belongs to Manchuria, which in turn belongs to the PRC.

Can you ever make a self-consistent argument???

Devil's

====================

http://www.economist.com/comment/3074891#comment-3074891

ý@ýýýýH in reply to betelnut310

[betelnut310 in reply to guest-smmejelMar 25th, 05:40

How can a successor nation have sovereignty over a predecessor nation it never governed? ]

The PRC can only be "a successor nation" to ROC if it overthrows the latter by revolution/Civil war. In the case of between mainland China and Taiwan, the civil war was suspended due to the inability of either side to cross the Taiwan Strait militarily. When one side possesses that ability, it could simply proceed and do so.

Devil's

==================

http://www.economist.com/comment/3075159#comment-3075159

ý@ýýýýH in reply to guest-nsnjeoo

[guest-nsnjeoo in reply to Z. Y.Mar 26th, 07:21

You are in no position to speak for ccp, so pretend to do so. You don't even have the courage to travel back to china. I have, it was filthy beyond decription. So, don't pretend to speak for the communist. The only thing you need to remember is Nanjing 300,000. I love japan!]

I love Japan and Kara no Kyoukai too. Like the civil war between CCP and KMT, the war between China and Japan is still unfinished and remains suspended:

{Devils Advocate_1 in reply to Kara no Kyoukai

[Kara no Kyoukai reply to Pacific 15th, 04:30
China never defeated Japan. Japan surrendered only to the United States...]
.
There is some truth in your statement and it only confirms what many believe, which is that the Japanese only respects BRUTE FORCE. There is also some eerie similarity in mentality between the Japan of today and Germany between the World Wars.
.
After WWI, the German army felt "betrayed" by their politicians, who surrendered "without being militarily defeated". As a result the German right-wing did not feel obliged to accept the terms of their defeat. All that changed after WWII, in which Germany was not only soundly defeated but did so by its main victim-- USSR. The Rape of Berlin woke up the Germans so much that the denial of the Holocaust became a crime in Germany.
.
The fact that the main victims of Imperial Japan-- China, Korea-- did not actually militarily defeated Japan now make the Japanese right-wing arrogant. They feel that they are superior to their former victims while instinctively submitting to their white conquerors. It will have to take a "Rape of Tokyo" to bring them to their senses.
.
Needless to say, your statement above merely admits that, of the War in the Pacific and East Asia, only the part between Japan and the US is settled. The part between Japan and its Asian victims is still unfinished and remains suspended. Like the war in Europe, it will take a 2nd session to bring it to conclusion. Fortunately, unlike the first session, this 2nd session will be fought when the aggressor, Japan, will be weak while its victims, China, Korea and other Asian countries, will be strong. THAT will be poetic justice done!}
.
Devil's

===============

http://www.economist.com/comment/3075915#comment-3075915

ý@ýýýýH in reply to Michael Dunne

[Michael Dunne in reply to Z. Y.Mar 26th, 14:37

The French lost claim to the provinces by signing the treaties, like the treaty of Frankfurt.
`
What imbued legitimacy to the transfer of the territories at the end of WWI was inclusion in Wilson's 14 points, which the Germans agreed to use as the basis for the peace/armistice. See point 8:

. Restoration of French territory.

All French territory should be freed and the invaded portions restored, and the wrong done to France by Prussia in 1871 in the matter of Alsace-Lorraine, which has unsettled the peace of the world for nearly fifty years, should be righted, in order that peace may once more be made secure in the interest of all.
`
PRC didn't get the claim as successor state recognized fully until the early 1980s.]

[Michael Dunne in reply to Michael DunneMar 26th, 14:45

Correction: The date should be 1970s, somehow 1980s got typed out.]

The PRC IS the successor state of ROC by the fact that it overthrew the latter through a revolution. That event is recognized by the historical fact itself and by PRC itself. No other "recognition" is required.

`
[The treaty of Taipei in practice established relations between one polity in effective control of Taiwan, with the government of Japan. It also reinforced the terms of the San Francisco treaty.]

Both are illegal treaties. The US deliberately excluded the PRC from the San Francisco peace conference. It stabbed China in the back, but still expect the PRC to abide by the treaty???

The US policy has been consistent-- It punishes NOT the guilty but the WEAK!!! And it nurtured and protected the guilty parties and make enemies out of its former allies-- All for the purpose of establishing its global hegemony:

'The result of the U.S. role in the occupation and in controlling the treaty process has been described by John Dower in his recent book, Embracing Defeat: "One of the most pernicious aspects of the occupation was that the Asian peoples who had suffered most from imperial Japan's depredations-- the Chinese, Koreans, Indonesians, and Filipinos had no serious role, no influential presence at all in the defeated land. They became invisible. Asian contributions to defeating the emperor's soldiers and sailors were displaced by an all-consuming focus on the American victory in the Pacific War" (p. 27). The peripheralization of Asia in the SFPT therefore was no coincidence. It reflected the U.S.'s appropriation of the pan-Asian fight against Japanese imperialism as well as its determination to project its imperial values in the region. Japan would be its adjutant, a role for which Yoshida carefully fought. This required that the U.S. government fully nurture Japan's dual identity -- aligning it with the West and alienating it from Asia. Behind this manipulation also lay a deep-seated fear of Asian nationalism that was expressed through the demonization of communism. "'

http://www.jpri.org/publications/workingpapers/wp78.html
`

The US did not only give protection to Japan the nation. It also protected the WAR CRIMINALS, from the Japanese emperor down to sadistic killers of Unit 731:

http://www.pacificwar.org.au/JapWarCrimes/USWarCrime_Coverup.html

http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/war.crimes/World.war.2/Jap%20Bio-Warfare.htm

http://agreenroad.blogspot.hk/2014/10/unit-731-us-cia-and-military.html

http://articles.latimes.com/1988-12-18/local/me-1014_1_japanese-war-crimes

http://japanfocus.org/-Christopher-Reed/2177/article.html

`
[The Manchus controlled Mongolia. Does that give China the right to invade Mongolia today?]

The PRC signed off Mongolia. Show me proof that the PRC signed of Taiwan.

`
[And, Manchu control of Taiwan's east side may not have been so "effective" as made out to be, by standards of international law, by the way.]

It you are right-handed, your control of your left arm/hand would not be "so effective". So, does you left arm/hand still belong to you???

`
[Fact is as every year passes, the assertion of a claim gets dilute. Successor state principles are not written in stone - see the fact that Spanish South America comprises several states, including ones that used to be under Argentina, like Paraguay and Uruguay (and that is where the concept got its boost).]

As every year passes, the resolve by the PRC to recover Taiwan gets firmer. Whether "Successor state principles are written in stone " is up to the individual to interpret but the principle of imposition by force of arms is getting stronger as the PRC is getting more powerful. After all, the lack of military power was the source of all the evils that China had to suffer since the decline of the Qing empire: Aggression by the Western imperialists, Russia and Japan; the invasion and pillage by the Japanese militarists; then the sell-out and back-stabbing by its former allies (especially the US), etc

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Samuel_P._Huntington

[The Cairo declaration didn't strip anything, because it was just a declaration putting forth aims. The Potsdam Declaration mattered because it was used as the basis for the instrument of surrender and the subsequent peace.]

The Cairo Declaration was a proclamation made by 3 of the TOP leaders of the Allied powers. If that it does not matter, no other declaration or proclamation made subsequently and/or by other lesser politicians matters. China, therefore, can ignore ANY treaties, declarations, proclamations that don't work to its own interest!

Since "The Potsdam Declaration mattered", then tell me which clauses in the Potsdam Declaration that suit you purpose are valid and which clauses in the Potsdam Declaration the DON'T suit your purpose are NOT valid!!!

Devil's

===============

ý@ýýýýH in reply to Michael Dunne

[Michael Dunne in reply to Z. Y.Mar 26th, 21:46

Last I checked there is not a treaty concerning Japan handing over Taiwan over to the PRC. Please provide a reference suggesting otherwise.]

Japan was defeated. The Cairo Declaration required Japan be stripped of all its colonies and territories gained through greed. The territories were to be returned to all the rightful owners. But the US, which got control of territories like the Ryukyus and the Diaoyus, handed them over to Japan for "administrative control". It was like the US court handed over these 3 women to Castro for "administrative control" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariel_Castro_kidnappings

The US court had the good sense of not conducting such basdardy acts but the US government did exactly that when the territory and people concerned were not American!

`
[Otherwise, effective control is a factor, see Island of Palmas case.
`
And, self-determination will likely increasingly be a consideration.]

Taiwan was reverted to China (then ROC) and ROC had/has effective control over the territory. PRC being the successor state of ROC has the natural right to claim it.

`
["You cannot recognized a treaty of sovereignty transfer unless you fully recognize the legitimacy of the losing power's holding"
`
Not necessarily always the case - the Nazis certainly didn't recognize the legitimacy of the Czechoslovak republic controlling the Sudetenland.
`
And, I don't think the Republic of China viewed the Empire of Japan's control of Formosa as legitimate.]

Nor does the PRC view any TIers' control of Taiwan as legitimate. So, what is your point?

Devil's

==================

ý@ýýýýH in reply to Michael Dunne

[Michael Dunne in reply to ý@ýýýýHMar 27th, 12:47

Please show a treaty where Japan handed over sovereignty to the PRC.]

Why should the PRC need Japan to hand over sovereignty to it? That is a typical militarist mindset -- militarist Japan was the "victim" of Chinese aggression. Are you the same person as Mike Tyson Ironman?

By the way, the "Indians" never handed over sovereignty to the white occupationists. See my old post again below:

{24 June 1995
.
The Editor
South China Morning Post
GPO Box 47
Hong Kong
.
Sir,
.
I applaud your editorial of 22 June, in which you exposed the insidious manner in which the Japanese parliament and government had glossed over the crimes and genocides the Japanese Imperial Army had committed against the peoples of East Asia.
.
Your effort is to be commended and I hope you will extend it and apply it in an impartial and unbiased manner.
.
The crimes of Japan during World War II is but one of the crimes against humanity in recent history and it is not even the most serious.
.
Far more sinister are those committed by the whites against the non-whites, with the racial genocides carried out in America and Australia being the most systematic and thorough.
.
These are the most hideous crimes against humanity- surpassing, in scale and thoroughness, even Hitler's organized pogrom of the Jews and the Slavs. But while the whites react with anger and indignation to the massacres of their own kind, they continue to glorify and celebrate their genocidal achievements when their victims are non-Europeans.
.
We all should now wake up to the fact that the regimes thus established are illegal, immoral and illegitimate. For the sake of justice and legality, these criminal regimes must be abolished. Only then can a just "New World Order" prevail.
.
The South China Morning Post, having so bravely exposed the lies and deceit of the Japanese, should now take up this new task with added courage and vigour, and thus set a moral journalistic standard for the rest of the "Free Press" to follow.
.
Sincerely
.
**Censored by "The Free Press", Refused publication**}

`
[The fact is the Republic of China is a de facto independent state with effective control of the island. And that is backed up by a pretty strong expression of self-determination by the electorate, for that arrangement.]

de facto or not is again up to the individual to decide. That FACT is that ALL important countries in the world does not recognize that. And more of the least important are also defecting: e.g. Gambia.

But the MOST important FACT is that China will never allow its territory to be detached from it again. Taiwan can never get away from this fact-- by the reality of geography!!!

`
[As for the erroneous points about the Ryuukyuus and Japan, the world basically decided to hand those islands back to Japan, as per the Potsdam declaration, which was the basis for the instrument of surrender. something the Soviets were for.]

The world did NOT "decided to hand those islands back to Japan", with China among them. YOUR "the world" has no such authority. Tricky Dicky did that in an act of back-stabbing of its former Allies in WWII, i.e. in particular China.

Japan was defeated. The Cairo Declaration required Japan be stripped of all its colonies and territories gained through greed. The territories were to be returned to all the rightful owners. But the US, which got control of territory like the Ryukyus and Diaoyus, handed them over to Japan for "administrative control". It was like the US court handed over these 3 women to Castro for "administrative control" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariel_Castro_kidnappings

The US court had the good sense of not conducting such basdardy acts but the US government did exactly that when the territory and people concerned were not American!

If "the Potsdam declaration, which was the basis for the instrument of surrender", then tell me which clauses in the Potsdam Declaration that suit you purpose are valid and which clauses in the Potsdam Declaration the DON'T suit your purpose are NOT valid!!!

Devil's

==============

ý@ýýýýH in reply to Michael Dunne

[Michael Dunne in reply to ý@ýýýýHMar 27th, 12:57

Maybe read the declarations before posting. Seems you are resistant to doing that, on a pretty repetitive basis. When you have "as we determine" written in the Potsdam Declaration, then yeah, that is a qualifier. One that the UN was fine with (including the Soviets, Mao's backers/sugar daddy).]

Read it again, "as we determine" and NOT as "Uncle Sam determine". The US had NO right to make CHINA's determination. You and I had gone through this point before:

{Devils Advocate_1 in reply to Michael Dunne0 mins ago

[Michael Dunne in reply to guest-iwinejn May 8th, 19:16

The Potsdam declaration didn't necessarily constrain sovereignty to just the 4 main islands. See relevant clauses:

"Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine. "]

The Potsdam Declaration reaffirmed the terms Cairo Declaration: "8. The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine."

http://www.ndl.go.jp/constitution/e/etc/c06.html

The Cairo Declaration stipulated: "Japan will also be expelled from all other territories which she has taken by violence and greed. "

http://www.ndl.go.jp/constitution/e/shiryo/01/002_46/002_46tx.html

The Ryukyus, Diaoyus WERE "taken by violence and greed" by the Japanese.

The Potsdam Declaration (26 Jul 1945) stipulated that: "(8) The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out AND Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine.".

The islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku are considered ORIGINAL Japanese territories-- Not those "taken by violence and greed". And this makes them in a different class from the Ryukyus, Diaoyus, etc, which were "taken by violence and greed" by the Japanese. "such minor islands as we determine", therefore, should only include ORIGINAL Japanese territories. Alternatively, you could include the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku, with the Ryukyus and Diaoyus, in the category of " territories which she has taken by violence and greed". In that case, we could expel the Japanese from all these territories as well.

The "we" in the Potsdam Declaration clearly had to include China. Otherwise, China has no moral or legal responsibility to respect the terms of that declaration:

"1. We-the President of the United States, the President of the National Government of the Republic of China, and the Prime Minister of Great Britain, representing the hundreds of millions of our countrymen, have conferred and agree that Japan shall be given an opportunity to end this war."

However, the transfer of "administrative control" to the Japanese by the US in 1972 was done without China's agreement. It thus violated the terms of both the Cairo and Potsdam Declarations.

Uncle Same had dug a big hole for itself by refusing the participation of the PRC-- Something that the British could see coming-- and Nixon dug it even deeper in 1972. Now, Uncle will have to deal with the sh1t itself.}

`
[The Cairo Declaration wasn't even signed.]

Since the Potsdam Declaration WAS signed, then tell me which clauses in the Potsdam Declaration that suit you purpose are valid and which clauses in the Potsdam Declaration that do NOT suit your purpose are NOT valid!!!
`

[Since the Decline of the Qing, the imperialism had largely originated from the Soviets and Japanese. And the ones that pushed for a "stab in the back" were the Soviets, in securing Mongolia's independence, pressing for privileges in Manchuria, not to mention in working to undermine the Republic of China through support of Mao and the CCP (see Manchuria again, as well as supplies/volunteers coming over from Soviet occupied North Korea).]

The Soviet DID stab China in the back-- Just like Japan and Uncle Sam!!! That is, of course, ANOTHER matter and can in no way exclude the fact that Uncle DID stab China in the back too. Let you give you a hypothetical example. Suppose I raped your Japanese wife and my black African pal ALSO raped her. HOW can the African's rape exonerate my raping of your Japanese wife???

`
[Otherwise, thanks for reminding people here that it was through violence that the PRC secured power. That point doesn't exactly help when it comes to international recognition, and getting invited to international conferences (especially ones where it was not the legal government at the time of the conflict being brought to an end). Not to mention the PRC then acted like an outlaw state, like with Korea.]

That's very very funny, Mikey! Of course, it is TRUE that that the PRC secured power trough violence. So, did the ROC and the Qing dynasty before it.

I also want to remind you that YOUR Amelika also secured power through violence and genocide against the native peoples of America. Talking about "outlaws"!!! See my old post above.

`
[Interesting way of punishing the weak, by providing tons of aid and then markets of first resort for exports, as well as transfers of knowledge and technology? You talking about Taiwan, South Korea, etc. right?]

Uncle was/is "providing tons of aid" to Japan, which ought to be punished INSTEAD for its crimes against is victims and crimes against humanity unmatched in human history:

The same happened in China but a thousand times greater in scale and in intensity.

{http://www.battlingbastardsbataan.com/som.htm

"Women were raped and sliced with bayonets from groin to throat and left to bleed to death in the hot sun.

"Children were seized by the legs and had their heads bashed against the wall. Babies were tossed into the air and caught on bayonets. Unborn fetuses were gouged out with bayonets from pregnant women."}

http://www.icasinc.org/2005/2005s/2005sdph.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=439776&in_page_id=1770

"first resort for exports" wanted cheaper Chinese manufactures at the cost of Chinese sweat, labour, injuries and very often Chinese lives in the work place. "transfers of knowledge and technology" are normal processes in trade. America also got that from countries industrialized before it did and they in turn got from older civilizations (Chinese, Indian, Arabic...) and then expanded and added to the basket of knowledge and technology of the human race.

If you are so jealous about your "knowledge and technology", why don't you just move to and make you home in a Black-hole. No knowledge from you can get out then.

Devil's

==================

ý@ýýýýH in reply to Michael Dunne

[Michael Dunne in reply to ý@ýýýýHMar 28th, 06:59

This is silly:
"However, the transfer of "administrative control" to the Japanese by the US in 1972 was done without China's agreement. It thus violated the terms of both the Cairo and Potsdam Declarations."
`
It was recognized that Japan had residual sovereignty over the Ryuukyuus.]

Any "residual sovereignty" was LOST because Japan was the aggressor which was defeated. The Cairo Declaration was already TOO generous to Japan. Before the War, whenever Japan started an aggression against China or other nations in Asia, it extracted territorial and other concessions even though Japan itself was the aggressor. Not having to lose territory on its 4 main home islands after its defeat was already an INJUSTICE to Japan's victims. To be rewarded with non-Japanese territory was a double-injustice to Japan's victims. It all confirms my earlier statement that the US punishes NOT the guilty by the WEAK!!! The US maintains "peace" there by using its superior military power to trample down Japanese former victims while nurturing Japan:

Let me remind YOU that China did NOT commit aggression against Japan, yet it is acceptable to you that Japan did NOT respect China's sovereignty, full or residual, on PROVEN Chinese territories!!! Why does Japan, the aggressor, get such preferential treatment from the US, and you, if not for the latter's policy of "punishing NOT the guilty but the WEAK"???!!!

The US, therefore, did NOT dispense, or restore justice, but perpetuated the injustice that was the cause of the war in the first place.

`
[Heck, other countries were arguing for full sovereignty before that, like India.]

The Indian judge in the Tokyo War Criminal trial also argued that the war criminals should NOT be punished. Not having to suffer Tens of million dead in the most dreadful manner and destruction all over their own country can work wonders-- Just like the "superior European race masters" of the Japanse keep covering up, and white-washing, for Japan:

The never-ending war of Jennifer Suzuki and other right-wing Japanese, for salvaging their "next superior Nipponese race masters" status, suits their "superior European race masters' " own agenda very well. It is, therefore, not at all surprising that many whites come solidly down on the side of the right-wing Japanese:

{Devils Advocate_1 in reply to jennifersuzuki 0 mins ago

[jennifersuzuki inreply to Simon 31st, 00:03

sorry to pour cold water on the subject, but I do agree with Mike Tyson Ironman that Nanjing Incident and Comfort women issues have been exaggerated and used as a propaganda tool by the communist China to demonize Japan, and although perhaps some chinese prostitutes did serve Japanese soldiers out of poverty, it is the case that most of them did it willingly.]

Not at all. It is the Nipponese who made up the "A-Bombing issue" to demonise the "superior European race". The so-called "victims" of the A-bomb attacks on Japan were willing victims hired by Unit 731 and the "superior European race" to test the effect of A-bombing on live humans. These "victims" served as test subjects out of greed and got what they wished. Not even your "cold water" could help to ease their A-bomb sunbath sores.

.
[ As an anecdote, I remember the last time I went back to Japan, I saw many--many, many--chinese prostitutes and korean prostitutes in Japan working voluntarily and this was back in 2009. And I think the whole comfort women misunderstanding have been similarly constructed--that they were mere prostitutes working for the Japanese army. As a Japanese woman, I have no pity for them nor do I have any sympathy for them.]
.

What do you expect??? These prostitutes are after money and are different from the "comfort women", who were forced by the IJA into it! Besides, these "chinese prostitutes and korean prostitutes" today do serve a higher moral purpose in Japan, which is that they can teach Japanese men why they should NOT screw their OWN mothers!!! ;-D, ;-D, ;-D; ;-D, ;-D, ;-D, ;-D, ;-D, ;-D, ;-D, ;-D, ;-D, ;-D, ;-D, ;-D, ;-D, ;-D, ...

http://lurkerfaqs.com/boards/400-current-events/65738089/

http://www.topix.com/forum/world/japan/T6BG2ECMNMC6GA71Q/p2

.
[And even if some of the accounts of atrocities were true, since war is always aggressive--forgive me to intrude my very personal understanding and view--must not we forget that they deserved it for being an inferior race? We Japanese understand that we are inferior to European race, and as a Japanese woman I never complain to my master who is superior to me; similarly I find the asian race to be inferior to the Japanese race, and therefore whatever that Japanese did do to an inferior race was and should be justified. As a matter of fact, German philosopher Nietzsche actually once listed the Arabs, Romans, Germans, Japanese as the examples of noble races for their ability to kill, rape, and torture. Is it perhaps not then the right of the noble race to dominant the inferior race such as the Jews and Chinese? And is it perhaps not the case that an superior race or nation such as America ought to dominate the less superior race and nation? As a Japanese national living in America with an American boyfriend, I do not find any objection to be dominated by Americans and I find the natural order of universe to be one of domination and submission; it is right for America to be Master of Japan and it was right for Japan to be Master of Asia. Thus the natural order of universe was and has always been.]
.
Thanks for you very HONEST exposition, which merely confirms what I always knew about the psychology/mentality of the Nipponese. The Nipponese are indeed inferior to the "superior European race"-- You are the living proof.

However, the other Asian peoples are NOT-- The Chinese were the first to prove that in Korea, then the Vietnamese did that again in Vietnam, and Afghans did the same again in Afghanistan, etc, etc. It might indeed be "right for America to be Master of Japan" but neither Uncleland or Japan can prove that they capable of being the "Master of Asia".

Therefore, what the "German philosopher Nietzsche actually once listed" merely proves that the Romans, Germans, Japanese are animals rather than true Humans. The Romans and Germans, at least, have now shown their capability to return to their human roots. For examples, the Germans have made the denial of the Holocaust a crime in their country. The Nipponese have not and have repeatedly shown their animalistic nature day after day. Animalistic Nipponese are indeed INFERIOR to Homosapiens-- They lack the ability to "seek truth from facts" and to change their mentality and behaviour accordingly.

.
The world owes you and Mikey for revealing the true inner nature of the Nipponese. Frankly, if it were just me who told such truths about the Nipponese on the TE forums, I would merely be dismissed an anti-Japanese "racist".}

However, when it come to the Bengal famine, which caused far far fewer deaths, and the way of dying was far far less dreadful, the Indians hate the Brits passionately and they are right to do so.: http://yourstory.com/2014/08/bengal-famine-genocide/
`

[No terms of the Cairo Declaration or Potsdam Declaration took place.]

What has that to do with India?

`
[Seems you need to brush up on Japanese history too - Hokkaido was conquered by the Japanese too way back. A good portion of the island was secured after the Satsuma took over the Ryuukyuu kingdom.]

So, wasn't the other "non-good portion" already "secured" before that? Maybe, the whole was already conquered though part of it was not yet "secured"!!!

As I have said above:

"Before the War, whenever Japan started an aggression against China or other nations in Asia, it extracted territorial and other concessions even though Japan itself was the aggressor. Not having to lose territory on its 4 main home islands after its defeat was already an INJUSTICE to Japan's victims. To be rewarded with non-Japanese territory was a double-injustice to Japan's victims."

China's job now must be to rectify this treachery-- Generosity and forgiveness breed contempt because the aggressor does NOT see it as forgiveness but just another weakness it can further exploit.

Devil's

====================

ý@ýýýýHin reply to Michael Dunne

[Michael Dunne in reply to ý@ýýýýHMar 28th, 13:57

Who cares what Nietzsche said. Don't see any relevance to this discussion here.]

The Japanese right-wing does. That is not an isolated case either:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-n3XBz-fig

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/19/world/asia/ugly-images-of-asian-rivals-become-best-sellers-in-japan.html?_r=0

[And why the posting of links to suspect forums over gross rumors of incest in Japan?]

From other sources too, in Japan mother-son incest seems to be a sub-culture in its own right.

But, the link I posted was a direct RESPONSE to Suzuki's verbal assault on the Koreans and Chinese but THAT seem to be acceptable to you, while my response to that assault is not!!! That tells me something about YOU.

`
[Seems like you are just reposting a bunch of rubbish that you have collected on hand, for no real reason.]

It is all done for a reason. It exposes the reasons for the position that you are taking and makes you feel uncomfortable.

`
[Interesting you sound pro-Taliban/Al Qaeda there. Will continue saying that if they start more trouble in Xinjiang? And I wouldn't associated the whole country of Afghanistan with those extremists.]

They DID "continue saying that" when Chinese were killed in Urumqi (Xinjiang) and Kunming. When Chinese were killed and burnt to death a few years ago in Lhasa, the propaganda industry of the white West called it "peaceful protest". But when "superior European race masters" of the Japan were killed, they call for a solidarity march: https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/01/12/wheres-our-unity-march-china-wants-to-know/

And when it was the Chinese who suffered under the Japanese, YOU keep "continue saying" your pro-Japanese statements on these forums, don't you?

`
[China just made itself out to be an outlaw country in Korea, in supporting the commencing of the war there by its allies (North Korea and the Soviets), and then undertaking full military intervention when the North Koreans failed with their invasion plans. Don't think the many of the South Koreans are too happy about that - PRC's support for invasion of their territory, followed by an actual invasion by the PRC.
`
Talk about treachery. Weird you would try to spin it differently in the rambling chain of non-sequiturs there.]

Firstly, that war was started by North Korea and the Soviets, yet you NEVER accuse the Soviets for "making itself out to be an outlaw country in Korea"!!! In your mind, whites DO occupy a special position that exempt them from bad judgement. China could NOT make the Korean war if the 2 did NOT want it. China reacted in order to protect its own security.

2ndly, as explained in my previous posts, the North Koreans, being Koreans, had every right to unite their own country by whatever means they saw fit. The thinking of Kim was not much different from that of Rhee. The only difference was that Rhee did not have the means.

Just on TV news today, the South Koreans have returned remains of some 3 dozens of Chinese volunteers soldiers to China today. Similar process have been happening for some years now. So, go tell the South Koreans that they are not "too happy"!!!

Devil's

================

ý@ýýýýHin reply to Michael Dunne

[Michael Dunne in reply to ý@ýýýýHMar 28th, 13:46

Please read the entry, its pretty straightforward:
"(8) The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine"

`
And the "as we determine" is pretty clear there. If it isn't please refer to a dictionary.]

Again, YOU are the one who don't want to read the straightforward. That clause REAFFIRMS the Cairo Declaration and the Cairo Declaration makes it clear the all colonies of Japan and all territories gained through greed are to be stripped off Japan. The Ryukyus was a colony of Japan before WWII.

In the "as we determine", that "we" MUST include China but China was DELIBERATELY excluded by Uncle Sam in the San Francisco conference. Whatever your "we" constitutes", it does NOT include China and China have to obligation to take that back-stabbing crap.

`
[And those who refrained from signing the San Francisco felt it should have been more clearer that the Ryuukyuus be seen as falling under Japanese sovereignty, like India and the Soviet Union.]

India and the Soviet Union were/are no more arbiters than Uncle Sam. They both belong to the group who were outsiders and were not the main victims of militarist Japan. Hence, it is comfortable for them to ignore the terms of the Cairo Declaration at the expense of China and other victims of Japan and twisted the terms in favour of the aggressor. But WHEN it was they who were the main victims, they reacted passionately. Examples:

1) The Soviets got back at the Germans by RAPING all their way to Berlin and did a Rape of Berlin there too. No one can blame them for doing that considering the damages the Germans had done to the USSR. The Soviets also made the German lose a large portion of its territory in retaliation-- By taking part of Poland and made Germany transfer similar amount to Poland. THE SCORES HAD BEEN EQUALIZED!!!

2) The Indians passionately hate the British for various famines the latter had caused in India. They even hate the Pakistanis when Pakistan has always been the underdog in all disputes between the 2. The Indians, like the whites, don't give a damn about whether justice was done on Japan since, like the whites, they were NOT the main victims of Japan's aggression!!! That is just human nature. I can't see why you want to deny that.

`
[And you may want to reference the positions/policies of the Chinese Communist party at the time, like Mao, whom you seem so keen on.]

The CCP was DELIBERATELY excluded by Uncle Sam from the San Francisco peace process "at the time" and now you complain that they did NOT make their position clear "at the time" in that conference??? Doesn't that sound a little FUNNY-- Even to your own ears???!!!

China's position has always been clear: The terms of the Cairo and Potsdam Declarations must be adhered to!

`
[As for stabbing in the back, the Soviets were the ones doing that with retrieving Czarist era privileges in Manchuria. The US could be seen in the wrong for agreeing to that kind of deal at Yalta.]

Yes, they BOTH were: If I and my African pal raped you Japanese wife, then BOTH of us are guilty of rape. Why is it so difficult to understand???

`
[Otherwise, the US was instrumental in ending Japanese militarism in China, ]

China lost some 30 million people in fighting for that too.

[helped repatriate the Japanese army from there, ]

And therefore put the rapists, sadistic killers SAFELY back to the arms of their loving family members.

http://www.pacificwar.org.au/JapWarCrimes/USWarCrime_Coverup.html

http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/war.crimes/World.war.2/Jap%20Bio-Warfare.htm

http://agreenroad.blogspot.hk/2014/10/unit-731-us-cia-and-military.html

http://articles.latimes.com/1988-12-18/local/me-1014_1_japanese-war-crimes

http://japanfocus.org/-Christopher-Reed/2177/article.html

Some 30 million Chinese did not have the luck of having that. How fortunate these Japanese killers were that they had Uncle Sam as their conqueror. The Chinese were damned for having the SAME Uncle Sam as their Ally.

[and got Taiwan and associated islands returned to China. So ranting about stab in the back gets a bit silly.]

Firstly, China had the right to regained lost territories to Japan for its part in the War. China lost the most number of people, suffered the greatest atrocities, etc in the War in Asia. Now, I also want to credit the USA with their effort in that war, which was the most effective and was the MOST crucial to victory over militarist Japan. But the stab-in-the-back came AFTER the ending of the War:

and in San Francisco!!!

Devil's