Pro-China, Anti-Japan Protests - Page 65

On September 19 2012 00:41 Xiphos wrote:


Elaborate please.

On September 18 2012 17:42 Dreadwolf wrote:



Its too bad that the Japanese would see it has a form of weakness. Admitting you where wrong is a good way to not repeat past mistakes. Not repeating past mistake cant be anything but a sign of strength. The four week of airing is pushing it tho. This of course would not make the chinese peopple hate less.. right now, that is true. But in time, it could help.

On September 19 2012 00:08 ddrddrddrddr wrote:


America was first attacked by Japan. The act was to force a surrender. No one knew exactly what the devastation of the bomb would bring. If America didn't apologize, at least there's a reason.
Tibet is Chinese territory, does Dalai Lama want to apologize for his previous incarnations enslaving Tibetans? And hand in NK? wtf are you talking about? Was the Kim family from China and I didn't know about it? If so they should really apologize to the NK people.

What other erroneous examples would you like to use?

On September 19 2012 00:41 evilfatsh1t wrote:
was the english teacher in update #6 japanese?
cause if he wasnt, your friend is an asshole
and thats sugarcoating it

On September 19 2012 00:54 sekritzzz wrote:

Japan's economic situation is a catastrophe. Although it will mutually hurt both players, the effect on japan will be magnitudes worst. Not that I agree that it will be their next move but japan's economy is on the brink of disaster.

On September 19 2012 01:00 ChThoniC wrote:
This shit is so inane.

The Liancourt rocks are a bunch of rocks that mean almost nothing, and probably belong to Japan (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Rusk_note_of_1951).

The Senkaku Islands have been controlled by Japan (and the US) for over 100 years, and the protests are probably a government-induced ploy.

It's really just ridiculous government-induced hate, and it's ridiculous that any citizens of any of these countries give a damn about this.

On September 18 2012 23:50 shadymmj wrote:
an apology should never be degrading, nor should you ask anyone to make an apology in such a way that would strip his dignity from him. that is not how gentlemen behave in today's day and age.

a formal and sincere apology should be dignified, maybe with a full bow in the Asian tradition, but done and accepted in a graceful manner. the "get on your knees" mentality that is suggested here is truly horrid and absurd.

On September 19 2012 01:00 ChThoniC wrote:
This shit is so inane.

The Liancourt rocks are a bunch of rocks that mean almost nothing, and probably belong to Japan (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Rusk_note_of_1951).

The Senkaku Islands have been controlled by Japan (and the US) for over 100 years, and the protests are probably a government-induced ploy.

It's really just ridiculous government-induced hate, and it's ridiculous that any citizens of any of these countries give a damn about this.

On September 19 2012 01:07 Orek wrote:


Well, I am one of a few who usually defend Japanese view, but I have to disagree on this one.

Sovereignty of Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands is not that simple. Japanese controlling for a long time doesn't mean much when discussing territorial dispute like this.

Also, Rusk Note is more relevant to Dokdo/Takeshima territorial dispute between Korean and Japan. These 2 are different territorial disputes although Japan is in both.

On September 19 2012 01:23 Azarkon wrote:


From the Japanese perspective, sure. However, the world does not revolve around the Japanese perspective.

The Liancourt Rocks - Dokdo - and the Senkaku Islands - Diaoyu - are very big deals for Koreans and Chinese, respectively.

Uneasy crowd control in East China Sea
By Jens Kastner

TAIPEI - Ever since the Japanese government this month signed a deal with a private landowner to purchase and nationalize the East China Sea's Senkaku Islands (called Diaoyu Islands in Chinese), which are controlled by Japan but subject to competing claims by Beijing and Taipei, the waters in the area have been witnessing a rapid buildup of semi-military forces belonging to the three powers that have hugely complex relationships with one another.

While even the most seasoned observers on Asian security affairs have difficulties imagining the consequences the first shot fired would bring about, it is obvious that the more warriors and military hardware are ordered into the theater by leaders who want to save face at home, the higher the likelihood of carnage.

On September 7, Taiwanese President Ma Ying-jeou sought to underscore Taiwan's sovereignty over the disputed islands by a two-hour whirlwind visit to Pengjia Islet, which at 140 kilometers is the closest Taiwan-controlled soil gets to the Senkakus. On Pengjia, the Beijing-friendly Taiwanese leader slammed the Japanese government's plan to nationalize the islands as an "invasion" of territory of Republic of China (Taiwan's official name), and while shaking his fist, he had a handful of ROC Air Force Mirage 2000 and F-16 fighter jets thundering over the scene.

A few days later, he ordered two coast guard ships armed with 20-millimeter cannons and 50mm guns to the waters surrounding the Senkakus to "protect" Taiwanese fishing boats, which in the past have often been chased away by the Japanese coast guard when fishing there.

This, of course, implies that Taiwan's coast guard vessels will in future interfere at gunpoint whenever their Japanese counterparts attempt to expel what they perceive as foreign poachers. As Taipei orchestrated Ma's Pengjia trip as well as the coast guard vessels' dispatch with as much martial fanfare as possible, and Taiwanese patrol operations near the Senkakus are now conducted around the clock, it not only makes the vicinity of the contested islands a more crowded place, but also sets the bar higher. Any future failure by the Taiwanese coast guard to shield the fishermen from Japanese action will draw flak in Taiwan's domestic politics to the detriment of the ruling party, Ma's Kuomintang.

All signs are that the Taiwanese government will want to prevent such an outcome by putting additional pressure on its coast guard, thereby creating a vicious cycle.

A disaster is undoudtedly brewing on the mainland Chinese side. The state-run Xinhua News Agency reported that nearly 2,000 Chinese fishing boats have left port this week sailing for the Diaoyu waters. This will surely make the situation even less controllable. Chinese media proclaims that over 1,000 Chinese fishing boats catch 150,000 tonnes of fish annually in the disputed waters - and they have all the right to continue doing so, as, according to the usual Chinese phraseology, the "Diaoyu Islands and their affiliated islets have been China's inherent territory since ancient times".

Before and upon Tokyo's purchase of the Senkakus, violent protests broke out in many Chinese cities against the Japanese, who are generally disliked in China as they were the country's brutal occupiers in World War II. Meanwhile Beijing, desperate not to be seen as weak and cowardly at home when taking on Tokyo, acted by ordering six ocean surveillance ships to intrude into Japanese waters in a high-profile move that sent chills down spines around the globe.

It is not clear whether Japan has also raised the stakes since by dispatching more personnel and hardware into the scene. But given its two competitors' apparent determination, it is a near-certain outcome.

When addressing international audiences, government officials and affiliated observers from all three sides - unlike when they are firing up their respective home crowds - tend to point out in a bid to demonstrate moral high ground that their military still plays no direct role in the events. In Japan's and Taiwan's cases, the coast guard is a civilian law-enforcement agency under the cabinet, as opposed to an organization that steams ahead under navy command, while the mainland's patrol boats so far involved belong to the paramilitary China Marine Surveillance under the auspices of the State Oceanic Administration, not the PLA Navy.

However, according to experts interviewed by Asia Times Online, this does not make the situation much safer. The risk of minor combat accidentally erupting looms ever larger over the Senkakus, they say.

"These maneuvers are all threats that leave something to chance," said John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, a US-based think-tank. "But that's the whole point: if there was no risk of accidental escalation, no one would be paying attention."

When asked about his take on concrete combat scenarios, Pike sees only one that's thinkable. According to him, there will be no combat between Japan and Taiwan. He also dismissed a notion popular with Taiwanese academics lately, according to which if Taiwanese vessels were to come under Japanese attack Beijing would jump on the opportunity to protect the Taiwanese forces to promote its sacred aim of cross-strait unification.

Nor is there a possibility that Taiwan and the mainland could combat each other, according to Pike, as "everyone is making too much money".

But if mainland China were to fire at Japan first, things could get very interesting very fast, he said. "It is important to remember that this is the one disputed island where the US does have a position on the competing claims - the US [which is in a defense alliance with Japan] is clear that Senkaku is Japanese."

James Holmes, an associate professor at the US Naval War College, expounded more on the dangers of having three governments fielding semi-military forces.

"Crowding the seas and skies with assets from multiple countries, and from multiple services within each country, does make for a volatile situation," he said. "Not only does it increase the likelihood of something touching off a small-scale confrontation, but it also makes it difficult for each government to coordinate its response effectively."

Holmes noted that coast guards have different bureaucratic cultures from navies, and are still more different from air forces and other bodies that may be present around the Senkakus. "Organizations may respond quite differently to the same circumstances. The chances of a fragmented response rise in times of stress, and this in turn increases the chances of miscalculation and escalation."

He concluded by drawing a historic parallel that is intriguing, indeed.

"The situation reminds me a bit of the [1962] Cuban missile crisis. Thankfully, the stakes are smaller and the weapons deployed create a lot smaller bang," Holmes said. "But here again, fairly confined waters were flooded with naval vessels and merchantmen. The contenders' rules of engagement were unclear, heightening the uncertainty. Some truly hair-raising things occurred. We hear echoes of that in the East China Sea."

On September 19 2012 01:34 ChThoniC wrote:


Yes, I know they're different issues. I haven't seen any evidence that China cared about a Japanese factory on the Senkaku from 1900 until 1940. Why is it suddenly a big issue now?





No, they're not big deals. They're political plays by the governments of China (to drown out civil unrest against their own government) and Korea (to get re-elected, and attacking Japan politically is a good way to get citizens to support officials, since Korean kids are indoctrinated by the government to hate Japan).