|
On September 19 2012 02:37 Azarkon wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 02:34 ChThoniC wrote:On September 19 2012 02:07 synapse wrote:On September 19 2012 02:02 ChThoniC wrote:On September 19 2012 01:52 Azarkon wrote:On September 19 2012 01:49 ChThoniC wrote:On September 19 2012 01:35 Azarkon wrote:On September 19 2012 01:34 ChThoniC wrote:On September 19 2012 01:07 Orek wrote: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. 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. 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? On September 19 2012 01:23 Azarkon wrote: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. 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. 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). This is a typical Japanese perspective that does not at all help matters. Saying that every issue other governments have with Japan is a political play, when it's obvious that a lot of the rage and anger is grassroots, and has legitimate and understandable links with the past, is the equivalent of putting your hands over your ears and singing la-la-la. What do you mean that it "does not at all help matters"? For example, with the Liancourt Rocks, why does Korea refuse to go the the ICJ over the ownership and get it settled? The official Korean position is "because it's obviously ours", which is not true. There is obviously a dispute, and if anything signs point to them being Japanese. A more likely reason is that Korea isn't going to the ICJ because this recent campaign is only political. With the Senkaku Islands and China, it seems pretty clear that China agreed that they belonged to Japan in 1895 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Shimonoseki), and shortly after that, a Japanese bonito plant was set up on the island (with no dispute from China). This recent anti-Japan sentiment also comes shortly after a lot of civil unrest in China. Is it a coincidence? Or does it make more sense that it's a political ploy? EDIT: Look at this article. The headline says it all: "China's Vice President Xi Jinping returns to public eye amid anti-Japan unrest" http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/chinas-vice-president-xi-jinping-returns-to-public-eye-amid-anti-japan-unrest/story-e6frg6so-1226475066343 In 1895, China was losing every war vs. Japan and had no ability to protest Japanese annexations. Taiwan was annexed in the same year, in case you forgot. In the 1970s, when the Senkaku / Diaoyu islands were returned to Japan by the US, both the ROC and the PRC DID protest. A week ago, the Japanese government decided to take the issue further by nationalizing the islands. This sparked the protests, which turned into riots. On the ground level, hatred for the Japanese is tangible and potent. Every Chinese I've met in China have expressed this. It's obvious that this isn't just a government ploy. So from 1895 until 1970, there were no protests by China about these islands that belonged under the control of Japan, and then the US. Then in 1970 there was some protest, which lead to absolutely nothing, until 42 years later when the Japanese government bought the islands from a Japanese citizen. Governments buy property from citizens fairly often, but it never incites burning factories and smashing the cars of citizens, and looting Rolex and Dior. The vice "president" of China disappeared mysteriously for 2 weeks among civil unrest, and now suddenly appears again smiling that the citizens of China are rioting against Japan. Just coincidence? China wasn't really under any circumstance to contest the ownership of a small island through their civil war and WW2. Once everything settled down and the US returned the islands to Japan, China originally protested but it was Deng Xiaoping that kind of told everyone that this island wasn't really important and we could negotiate on it later. The territorial dispute has been going on for a long time, and the Japanese government suddenly buying it is easily seen as an insult. China signed documents saying that the land belonged to Japan, and then didn't say anything about it for 75 years, through two wars that lasted less than 30 years combined. It's absolutely nuts that this is leading to street riots, burning down factories, destroying malls, raiding stores that have no affiliation with Japan whatsoever (Rolex and Dior ??), and attacking people in public based on their nationality. If this is a real issue, why not take it to the ICJ? The reaction is totally ridiculous and makes it impossible to support what the Chinese people are doing, even if there's a valid dispute. The protests and riots aren't over the islands. The islands are the trigger, but the protests and riots go deeper. Haven't you been reading the thread?
Uh, that's kind of what he was originally getting at. China is using historical tensions as an excuse to make a power move.
|
On September 19 2012 02:44 Cedstick wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 02:37 Azarkon wrote:On September 19 2012 02:34 ChThoniC wrote:On September 19 2012 02:07 synapse wrote:On September 19 2012 02:02 ChThoniC wrote:On September 19 2012 01:52 Azarkon wrote:On September 19 2012 01:49 ChThoniC wrote:On September 19 2012 01:35 Azarkon wrote:On September 19 2012 01:34 ChThoniC wrote:On September 19 2012 01:07 Orek wrote:
[quote]
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. 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? On September 19 2012 01:23 Azarkon wrote:
[quote]
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. 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). This is a typical Japanese perspective that does not at all help matters. Saying that every issue other governments have with Japan is a political play, when it's obvious that a lot of the rage and anger is grassroots, and has legitimate and understandable links with the past, is the equivalent of putting your hands over your ears and singing la-la-la. What do you mean that it "does not at all help matters"? For example, with the Liancourt Rocks, why does Korea refuse to go the the ICJ over the ownership and get it settled? The official Korean position is "because it's obviously ours", which is not true. There is obviously a dispute, and if anything signs point to them being Japanese. A more likely reason is that Korea isn't going to the ICJ because this recent campaign is only political. With the Senkaku Islands and China, it seems pretty clear that China agreed that they belonged to Japan in 1895 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Shimonoseki), and shortly after that, a Japanese bonito plant was set up on the island (with no dispute from China). This recent anti-Japan sentiment also comes shortly after a lot of civil unrest in China. Is it a coincidence? Or does it make more sense that it's a political ploy? EDIT: Look at this article. The headline says it all: "China's Vice President Xi Jinping returns to public eye amid anti-Japan unrest" http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/chinas-vice-president-xi-jinping-returns-to-public-eye-amid-anti-japan-unrest/story-e6frg6so-1226475066343 In 1895, China was losing every war vs. Japan and had no ability to protest Japanese annexations. Taiwan was annexed in the same year, in case you forgot. In the 1970s, when the Senkaku / Diaoyu islands were returned to Japan by the US, both the ROC and the PRC DID protest. A week ago, the Japanese government decided to take the issue further by nationalizing the islands. This sparked the protests, which turned into riots. On the ground level, hatred for the Japanese is tangible and potent. Every Chinese I've met in China have expressed this. It's obvious that this isn't just a government ploy. So from 1895 until 1970, there were no protests by China about these islands that belonged under the control of Japan, and then the US. Then in 1970 there was some protest, which lead to absolutely nothing, until 42 years later when the Japanese government bought the islands from a Japanese citizen. Governments buy property from citizens fairly often, but it never incites burning factories and smashing the cars of citizens, and looting Rolex and Dior. The vice "president" of China disappeared mysteriously for 2 weeks among civil unrest, and now suddenly appears again smiling that the citizens of China are rioting against Japan. Just coincidence? China wasn't really under any circumstance to contest the ownership of a small island through their civil war and WW2. Once everything settled down and the US returned the islands to Japan, China originally protested but it was Deng Xiaoping that kind of told everyone that this island wasn't really important and we could negotiate on it later. The territorial dispute has been going on for a long time, and the Japanese government suddenly buying it is easily seen as an insult. China signed documents saying that the land belonged to Japan, and then didn't say anything about it for 75 years, through two wars that lasted less than 30 years combined. It's absolutely nuts that this is leading to street riots, burning down factories, destroying malls, raiding stores that have no affiliation with Japan whatsoever (Rolex and Dior ??), and attacking people in public based on their nationality. If this is a real issue, why not take it to the ICJ? The reaction is totally ridiculous and makes it impossible to support what the Chinese people are doing, even if there's a valid dispute. The protests and riots aren't over the islands. The islands are the trigger, but the protests and riots go deeper. Haven't you been reading the thread? Uh, that's kind of what he was originally getting at. China is using historical tensions as an excuse to make a power move.
Which is what he was wrong about. The tension is the cause of the protests / riots, and exists not because it's an 'excuse' but because it is a current running through all of Chinese society. He was saying that the Chinese government orchestrated it all, which goes against everything that's been said in the thread.
This isn't an orchestrated move. This is a move that reflects the state of China-Japan relations. Both countries have been the other's most hated country for years now in global polls. All that pent up anger is finally boiling over.
|
On September 19 2012 02:34 ChThoniC wrote:
China signed documents saying that the land belonged to Japan, and then didn't say anything about it for 75 years, through two wars that lasted less than 30 years combined.
And then Japan signed documents at the end of WW2, saying they would return such territories - including the Diaoyutai/Senkaku islands - back to the respective Allies, which should have been China.
Instead, the USA took control of the islands after WW2 because China was too busy fighting a civil war. And in the 1970s, the USA improperly gave the islands back to Japan because Japan was its biggest ally in Asia, when it should have given it to China right after WW2.
|
On September 19 2012 02:47 Azarkon wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 02:44 Cedstick wrote:On September 19 2012 02:37 Azarkon wrote:On September 19 2012 02:34 ChThoniC wrote:On September 19 2012 02:07 synapse wrote:On September 19 2012 02:02 ChThoniC wrote:On September 19 2012 01:52 Azarkon wrote:On September 19 2012 01:49 ChThoniC wrote:On September 19 2012 01:35 Azarkon wrote:On September 19 2012 01:34 ChThoniC wrote:
[quote]
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?
[quote]
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). This is a typical Japanese perspective that does not at all help matters. Saying that every issue other governments have with Japan is a political play, when it's obvious that a lot of the rage and anger is grassroots, and has legitimate and understandable links with the past, is the equivalent of putting your hands over your ears and singing la-la-la. What do you mean that it "does not at all help matters"? For example, with the Liancourt Rocks, why does Korea refuse to go the the ICJ over the ownership and get it settled? The official Korean position is "because it's obviously ours", which is not true. There is obviously a dispute, and if anything signs point to them being Japanese. A more likely reason is that Korea isn't going to the ICJ because this recent campaign is only political. With the Senkaku Islands and China, it seems pretty clear that China agreed that they belonged to Japan in 1895 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Shimonoseki), and shortly after that, a Japanese bonito plant was set up on the island (with no dispute from China). This recent anti-Japan sentiment also comes shortly after a lot of civil unrest in China. Is it a coincidence? Or does it make more sense that it's a political ploy? EDIT: Look at this article. The headline says it all: "China's Vice President Xi Jinping returns to public eye amid anti-Japan unrest" http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/chinas-vice-president-xi-jinping-returns-to-public-eye-amid-anti-japan-unrest/story-e6frg6so-1226475066343 In 1895, China was losing every war vs. Japan and had no ability to protest Japanese annexations. Taiwan was annexed in the same year, in case you forgot. In the 1970s, when the Senkaku / Diaoyu islands were returned to Japan by the US, both the ROC and the PRC DID protest. A week ago, the Japanese government decided to take the issue further by nationalizing the islands. This sparked the protests, which turned into riots. On the ground level, hatred for the Japanese is tangible and potent. Every Chinese I've met in China have expressed this. It's obvious that this isn't just a government ploy. So from 1895 until 1970, there were no protests by China about these islands that belonged under the control of Japan, and then the US. Then in 1970 there was some protest, which lead to absolutely nothing, until 42 years later when the Japanese government bought the islands from a Japanese citizen. Governments buy property from citizens fairly often, but it never incites burning factories and smashing the cars of citizens, and looting Rolex and Dior. The vice "president" of China disappeared mysteriously for 2 weeks among civil unrest, and now suddenly appears again smiling that the citizens of China are rioting against Japan. Just coincidence? China wasn't really under any circumstance to contest the ownership of a small island through their civil war and WW2. Once everything settled down and the US returned the islands to Japan, China originally protested but it was Deng Xiaoping that kind of told everyone that this island wasn't really important and we could negotiate on it later. The territorial dispute has been going on for a long time, and the Japanese government suddenly buying it is easily seen as an insult. China signed documents saying that the land belonged to Japan, and then didn't say anything about it for 75 years, through two wars that lasted less than 30 years combined. It's absolutely nuts that this is leading to street riots, burning down factories, destroying malls, raiding stores that have no affiliation with Japan whatsoever (Rolex and Dior ??), and attacking people in public based on their nationality. If this is a real issue, why not take it to the ICJ? The reaction is totally ridiculous and makes it impossible to support what the Chinese people are doing, even if there's a valid dispute. The protests and riots aren't over the islands. The islands are the trigger, but the protests and riots go deeper. Haven't you been reading the thread? Uh, that's kind of what he was originally getting at. China is using historical tensions as an excuse to make a power move. Which is what he was wrong about. The tension is the cause of the protests / riots, and exists not because it's an 'excuse' but because it is a current running through all of Chinese society. He was saying that the Chinese government orchestrated it all, which goes against everything that's been said in the thread. This isn't an orchestrated move. This is a move that reflects the state of China-Japan relations. Both countries have been the other's most hated country for years now in global polls. All that pent up anger is finally boiling over.
That's a matter of perspective and opinion. Yes, those tensions have always existed, but he and others raise a very, very hard-to-ignore point about this being a great time to divert attention from civil unrest to a "big bad guy." Also keep in mind the sway of economic power in Asia at the moment.
|
On September 19 2012 02:37 Azarkon wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 02:34 ChThoniC wrote:On September 19 2012 02:07 synapse wrote:On September 19 2012 02:02 ChThoniC wrote:On September 19 2012 01:52 Azarkon wrote:On September 19 2012 01:49 ChThoniC wrote:On September 19 2012 01:35 Azarkon wrote:On September 19 2012 01:34 ChThoniC wrote:On September 19 2012 01:07 Orek wrote: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. 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. 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? On September 19 2012 01:23 Azarkon wrote: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. 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. 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). This is a typical Japanese perspective that does not at all help matters. Saying that every issue other governments have with Japan is a political play, when it's obvious that a lot of the rage and anger is grassroots, and has legitimate and understandable links with the past, is the equivalent of putting your hands over your ears and singing la-la-la. What do you mean that it "does not at all help matters"? For example, with the Liancourt Rocks, why does Korea refuse to go the the ICJ over the ownership and get it settled? The official Korean position is "because it's obviously ours", which is not true. There is obviously a dispute, and if anything signs point to them being Japanese. A more likely reason is that Korea isn't going to the ICJ because this recent campaign is only political. With the Senkaku Islands and China, it seems pretty clear that China agreed that they belonged to Japan in 1895 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Shimonoseki), and shortly after that, a Japanese bonito plant was set up on the island (with no dispute from China). This recent anti-Japan sentiment also comes shortly after a lot of civil unrest in China. Is it a coincidence? Or does it make more sense that it's a political ploy? EDIT: Look at this article. The headline says it all: "China's Vice President Xi Jinping returns to public eye amid anti-Japan unrest" http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/chinas-vice-president-xi-jinping-returns-to-public-eye-amid-anti-japan-unrest/story-e6frg6so-1226475066343 In 1895, China was losing every war vs. Japan and had no ability to protest Japanese annexations. Taiwan was annexed in the same year, in case you forgot. In the 1970s, when the Senkaku / Diaoyu islands were returned to Japan by the US, both the ROC and the PRC DID protest. A week ago, the Japanese government decided to take the issue further by nationalizing the islands. This sparked the protests, which turned into riots. On the ground level, hatred for the Japanese is tangible and potent. Every Chinese I've met in China have expressed this. It's obvious that this isn't just a government ploy. So from 1895 until 1970, there were no protests by China about these islands that belonged under the control of Japan, and then the US. Then in 1970 there was some protest, which lead to absolutely nothing, until 42 years later when the Japanese government bought the islands from a Japanese citizen. Governments buy property from citizens fairly often, but it never incites burning factories and smashing the cars of citizens, and looting Rolex and Dior. The vice "president" of China disappeared mysteriously for 2 weeks among civil unrest, and now suddenly appears again smiling that the citizens of China are rioting against Japan. Just coincidence? China wasn't really under any circumstance to contest the ownership of a small island through their civil war and WW2. Once everything settled down and the US returned the islands to Japan, China originally protested but it was Deng Xiaoping that kind of told everyone that this island wasn't really important and we could negotiate on it later. The territorial dispute has been going on for a long time, and the Japanese government suddenly buying it is easily seen as an insult. China signed documents saying that the land belonged to Japan, and then didn't say anything about it for 75 years, through two wars that lasted less than 30 years combined. It's absolutely nuts that this is leading to street riots, burning down factories, destroying malls, raiding stores that have no affiliation with Japan whatsoever (Rolex and Dior ??), and attacking people in public based on their nationality. If this is a real issue, why not take it to the ICJ? The reaction is totally ridiculous and makes it impossible to support what the Chinese people are doing, even if there's a valid dispute. The protests and riots aren't over the islands. The islands are the trigger, but the protests and riots go deeper. Haven't you been reading the thread?
Unfortunately, he hasn't been reading the thread and worse, his knowledge of history is dismal.
|
On September 19 2012 02:49 Cedstick wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 02:47 Azarkon wrote:On September 19 2012 02:44 Cedstick wrote:On September 19 2012 02:37 Azarkon wrote:On September 19 2012 02:34 ChThoniC wrote:On September 19 2012 02:07 synapse wrote:On September 19 2012 02:02 ChThoniC wrote:On September 19 2012 01:52 Azarkon wrote:On September 19 2012 01:49 ChThoniC wrote:On September 19 2012 01:35 Azarkon wrote:
[quote]
This is a typical Japanese perspective that does not at all help matters. Saying that every issue other governments have with Japan is a political play, when it's obvious that a lot of the rage and anger is grassroots, and has legitimate and understandable links with the past, is the equivalent of putting your hands over your ears and singing la-la-la. What do you mean that it "does not at all help matters"? For example, with the Liancourt Rocks, why does Korea refuse to go the the ICJ over the ownership and get it settled? The official Korean position is "because it's obviously ours", which is not true. There is obviously a dispute, and if anything signs point to them being Japanese. A more likely reason is that Korea isn't going to the ICJ because this recent campaign is only political. With the Senkaku Islands and China, it seems pretty clear that China agreed that they belonged to Japan in 1895 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Shimonoseki), and shortly after that, a Japanese bonito plant was set up on the island (with no dispute from China). This recent anti-Japan sentiment also comes shortly after a lot of civil unrest in China. Is it a coincidence? Or does it make more sense that it's a political ploy? EDIT: Look at this article. The headline says it all: "China's Vice President Xi Jinping returns to public eye amid anti-Japan unrest" http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/chinas-vice-president-xi-jinping-returns-to-public-eye-amid-anti-japan-unrest/story-e6frg6so-1226475066343 In 1895, China was losing every war vs. Japan and had no ability to protest Japanese annexations. Taiwan was annexed in the same year, in case you forgot. In the 1970s, when the Senkaku / Diaoyu islands were returned to Japan by the US, both the ROC and the PRC DID protest. A week ago, the Japanese government decided to take the issue further by nationalizing the islands. This sparked the protests, which turned into riots. On the ground level, hatred for the Japanese is tangible and potent. Every Chinese I've met in China have expressed this. It's obvious that this isn't just a government ploy. So from 1895 until 1970, there were no protests by China about these islands that belonged under the control of Japan, and then the US. Then in 1970 there was some protest, which lead to absolutely nothing, until 42 years later when the Japanese government bought the islands from a Japanese citizen. Governments buy property from citizens fairly often, but it never incites burning factories and smashing the cars of citizens, and looting Rolex and Dior. The vice "president" of China disappeared mysteriously for 2 weeks among civil unrest, and now suddenly appears again smiling that the citizens of China are rioting against Japan. Just coincidence? China wasn't really under any circumstance to contest the ownership of a small island through their civil war and WW2. Once everything settled down and the US returned the islands to Japan, China originally protested but it was Deng Xiaoping that kind of told everyone that this island wasn't really important and we could negotiate on it later. The territorial dispute has been going on for a long time, and the Japanese government suddenly buying it is easily seen as an insult. China signed documents saying that the land belonged to Japan, and then didn't say anything about it for 75 years, through two wars that lasted less than 30 years combined. It's absolutely nuts that this is leading to street riots, burning down factories, destroying malls, raiding stores that have no affiliation with Japan whatsoever (Rolex and Dior ??), and attacking people in public based on their nationality. If this is a real issue, why not take it to the ICJ? The reaction is totally ridiculous and makes it impossible to support what the Chinese people are doing, even if there's a valid dispute. The protests and riots aren't over the islands. The islands are the trigger, but the protests and riots go deeper. Haven't you been reading the thread? Uh, that's kind of what he was originally getting at. China is using historical tensions as an excuse to make a power move. Which is what he was wrong about. The tension is the cause of the protests / riots, and exists not because it's an 'excuse' but because it is a current running through all of Chinese society. He was saying that the Chinese government orchestrated it all, which goes against everything that's been said in the thread. This isn't an orchestrated move. This is a move that reflects the state of China-Japan relations. Both countries have been the other's most hated country for years now in global polls. All that pent up anger is finally boiling over. That's a matter of perspective and opinion. Yes, those tensions have always existed, but he and others raise a very, very hard-to-ignore point about this being a great time to divert attention from civil unrest to a "big bad guy."
Except the trigger came from the Japanese side. Did the Chinese government orchestrate the Japanese nationalizing the islands too?
Come on.
|
Jesus. As a Korean, I would have the same reasons to hate Japan (history, island ownership drama) and I say this is fucking idiotic.
Nationalism is a poison.
|
On September 19 2012 02:50 Azarkon wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 02:49 Cedstick wrote:On September 19 2012 02:47 Azarkon wrote:On September 19 2012 02:44 Cedstick wrote:On September 19 2012 02:37 Azarkon wrote:On September 19 2012 02:34 ChThoniC wrote:On September 19 2012 02:07 synapse wrote:On September 19 2012 02:02 ChThoniC wrote:On September 19 2012 01:52 Azarkon wrote:On September 19 2012 01:49 ChThoniC wrote:[quote] What do you mean that it "does not at all help matters"? For example, with the Liancourt Rocks, why does Korea refuse to go the the ICJ over the ownership and get it settled? The official Korean position is "because it's obviously ours", which is not true. There is obviously a dispute, and if anything signs point to them being Japanese. A more likely reason is that Korea isn't going to the ICJ because this recent campaign is only political. With the Senkaku Islands and China, it seems pretty clear that China agreed that they belonged to Japan in 1895 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Shimonoseki), and shortly after that, a Japanese bonito plant was set up on the island (with no dispute from China). This recent anti-Japan sentiment also comes shortly after a lot of civil unrest in China. Is it a coincidence? Or does it make more sense that it's a political ploy? EDIT: Look at this article. The headline says it all: "China's Vice President Xi Jinping returns to public eye amid anti-Japan unrest" http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/chinas-vice-president-xi-jinping-returns-to-public-eye-amid-anti-japan-unrest/story-e6frg6so-1226475066343 In 1895, China was losing every war vs. Japan and had no ability to protest Japanese annexations. Taiwan was annexed in the same year, in case you forgot. In the 1970s, when the Senkaku / Diaoyu islands were returned to Japan by the US, both the ROC and the PRC DID protest. A week ago, the Japanese government decided to take the issue further by nationalizing the islands. This sparked the protests, which turned into riots. On the ground level, hatred for the Japanese is tangible and potent. Every Chinese I've met in China have expressed this. It's obvious that this isn't just a government ploy. So from 1895 until 1970, there were no protests by China about these islands that belonged under the control of Japan, and then the US. Then in 1970 there was some protest, which lead to absolutely nothing, until 42 years later when the Japanese government bought the islands from a Japanese citizen. Governments buy property from citizens fairly often, but it never incites burning factories and smashing the cars of citizens, and looting Rolex and Dior. The vice "president" of China disappeared mysteriously for 2 weeks among civil unrest, and now suddenly appears again smiling that the citizens of China are rioting against Japan. Just coincidence? China wasn't really under any circumstance to contest the ownership of a small island through their civil war and WW2. Once everything settled down and the US returned the islands to Japan, China originally protested but it was Deng Xiaoping that kind of told everyone that this island wasn't really important and we could negotiate on it later. The territorial dispute has been going on for a long time, and the Japanese government suddenly buying it is easily seen as an insult. China signed documents saying that the land belonged to Japan, and then didn't say anything about it for 75 years, through two wars that lasted less than 30 years combined. It's absolutely nuts that this is leading to street riots, burning down factories, destroying malls, raiding stores that have no affiliation with Japan whatsoever (Rolex and Dior ??), and attacking people in public based on their nationality. If this is a real issue, why not take it to the ICJ? The reaction is totally ridiculous and makes it impossible to support what the Chinese people are doing, even if there's a valid dispute. The protests and riots aren't over the islands. The islands are the trigger, but the protests and riots go deeper. Haven't you been reading the thread? Uh, that's kind of what he was originally getting at. China is using historical tensions as an excuse to make a power move. Which is what he was wrong about. The tension is the cause of the protests / riots, and exists not because it's an 'excuse' but because it is a current running through all of Chinese society. He was saying that the Chinese government orchestrated it all, which goes against everything that's been said in the thread. This isn't an orchestrated move. This is a move that reflects the state of China-Japan relations. Both countries have been the other's most hated country for years now in global polls. All that pent up anger is finally boiling over. That's a matter of perspective and opinion. Yes, those tensions have always existed, but he and others raise a very, very hard-to-ignore point about this being a great time to divert attention from civil unrest to a "big bad guy." Except the trigger came from the Japanese side. Did the Chinese government orchestrate the Japanese nationalizing the islands too? Come on.
Does it have to be as simple as one thread? Sure, Japan might have triggered the incident, but that doesn't mean China can't profit off a power move. This doesn't have to be impeccably pre-planned by China or anything.
|
I kind of feel bad for all the Chinese, Koreans and Japanese that DONT hold grudges and are caught up in this conflict due to a minority of troublemakers, especially if this is going to escalate any further.
|
Norway25712 Posts
On September 19 2012 02:51 .Aar wrote:
Jesus. As a Korean, I would have the same reasons to hate Japan (history, island ownership drama) and I say this is fucking idiotic.
Nationalism is a poison.
Hear hear. I never understood having pride in one's country. Boggles my mind how someone can be so proud of, by chance, being born in a particular country, and thusly hold insane grudges towards other countries and the people of other countries.
|
On September 19 2012 02:19 Nuclease wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 02:08 Xpace wrote:On September 19 2012 01:47 Nuclease wrote:In reaction to Kwark, I might say this: Anti-Japanese sentiment, while it might have its "justifications," is paradoxical and unreasonable. Why? There are many reasons. Firstly, the Chinese have been buying and trading Japanese goods for decades. If the anti-Japanese sentiment was so reasonable, why haven't they been feeling it up until now? It seems to me that this is just the Chinese government doing a very good job with riling up its people (as always). When the government is making announcements over loud speakers at universities (the Chinese government controls all but a few universities), and they are making open statements of protest on American support of Japan on the issue, it becomes obvious that this is just a power grab. America recently installed an advanced missile-defense radar system in Japan, which has the range to detect incoming missiles from North Korea. In this move, they offended China and China ramped up governmental encouragement of protests. It's clear that this is the Chinese government, not its people. The people are using unguided frustration and anger to vent their rage. This is made clear by the destruction of Japanese goods (which they benefit from and have for decades) and the destruction of Chinese governmental vehicles (even if they are Japanese-made, they belong to the government they are made to seem like they love so much). Finally, one has to see that no matter what the involvement in WW2 is by Japan, this hate is no longer justified. During the time of WW2? That's one thing. Now? It's another. To say, Kwark, that we can justify this hatred because the Japanese are not recognizing what they have done to the Chinese is ridiculous. According to Mike Rogers, a Congressman from Michigan, the "Japanese prime ministers have, at least four times to date, clearly and publicly and officially apologized for World War II atrocities, war crimes and transgressions. Since the prime minister of Japan is its highest-ranking executive of state, to say that Japan hasn't apologized to its Asian neighbors is false. Even China, Korea, and Russia, as well as the United States, recognize that Japan has indeed apologized for her past actions." Just because Japanese officials recently visited a shrine does NOT mean that Japan as a whole can be held accountable for their actions. Why? Because they man who really represents Japan as a whole asked them NOT TO GO. According to the very article you cite in your response, Kwark, "Prime minister Yoshihiko Noda had asked members of his cabinet to stay away from the shrine." Moreover, that shrine doesn't just honor 14 "war criminals," it also honors the rest of Japan's war-dead, if you had read your article, Kwark. That visit was a general sign of defiance, not a tribute to Tojo. Moreover, even if it was a tribute to Tojo, who is to say that it would be totally unjustified? The term "war criminal" is one that we should all take a long and hard look at. We are told that killing people is a crime from the time we are born. Then, we launch into war, and suddenly there are conditions under which killing is okay. To defend a country, to win a war, etc. We have launched people into a world of crime the second we put them into a war, and to accuse them of committing crimes under these circumstances is unjustified. Why? Not because the things they do are not horrible and wrong. But because the war they are in is the first crime that causes all the others. The Japanese have done horrible things. But they hold themselves accountable for it, as I have already showed, and war is a horrible thing in itself. Moreover, we must not forget why Tojo is a war criminal: because the Japanese at large killed, according to the sources in this wikipedia article, around 6,000,000 people in Asia. However, this was not all under Tojo's reign as Prime Minister. Many of those killings took place far before Tojo. If the killing of citizens makes him a war criminal, then should we not visit Truman's grave? FDR's grave? The Presidents who built and dropped the atomic bomb are war criminals, too, since the standard for war criminals in this case is the killing of civilians. Make any argument you want for the necessity to drop the bomb, that's a non-issue (especially since it's so hard to justify any argument on any side). I'm sure that Tojo was making the same arguments for his actions. The point is that innocent civilians were killed in that bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The criminals are on the losing side. Fortunately for Truman and FDR, we won, so they don't have to be the criminals. What's more on the war crimes side, is that the Chinese government is guilty of war crimes and ethnic cleansing. Recently, too. According to this article, over 1,000 Uighurs were killed for speaking out against assimilation and annexing of Uighurs and their territory. This is well-known, so there's no need for me to go on. Let us not forget Taiwan or Tibet, either. The point of all of this is: if we are going to try and justify the amount of hate in China right now by pointing out old war crimes, we better look at a few things: the assumptions we make by using the term "war-crime," the standards by which we measure war-crimes and what that makes our generals and presidents, and the current war-crimes being committed by the Chinese government. The Chinese people are puppets on a string to the media of their government. This is not justified. Sources: this thread, http://www.lewrockwell.com/rogers/rogers206.html, Kwark's ABC article from the OP, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes, http://www.theatlanticright.com/2009/07/09/uighurs-fight-for-survival-china-guilty-of-ethnic-cleansing/ This post literally shits on pages and pages of discussion about the topic. And not in a 'lightbulb realization' kind of way, but more in a 'break through the door and spout the first thing in my head kind of way'. Did you bother reading past the first few pages? I'm inferring no, based on your direct response to KwarK's comment (who stopped posting in this thread for what feels like an eternity ago). Everything you wrote has been addressed. I'm going to come back to your post in 30 minutes, that should give you ample time to read through the pages of the thread and edit your post. This is, in no way, a form of hostility or an insult to you, I apologize ahead of time if it feels that way. No, I've read it. Just thought that the points that were similar to mine needed some better documentation. In advance, I don't give a shit what you say about my redundancy. It was just to better report on what might have already been said.
You not giving a shit has been established with every word of your post. Thanks for repeating that fact again, though.
|
On September 19 2012 02:42 baldgye wrote:
Be it nationalism, or religion people will always create 'justifications' for killing other people... sad, so very sad.
I think the bigger problem here is that China is basically the biggest super power in the world, and has no reason to listen to other nations to take the high road.
Japan where foolish and idiotic for poking at this point when China is basically at there most powerful post the US/EU financial crisis.
Western media has really got you good. China is nowhere as powerful as they have villified them to be.
|
On September 19 2012 02:53 Cedstick wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 02:50 Azarkon wrote:On September 19 2012 02:49 Cedstick wrote:On September 19 2012 02:47 Azarkon wrote:On September 19 2012 02:44 Cedstick wrote:On September 19 2012 02:37 Azarkon wrote:On September 19 2012 02:34 ChThoniC wrote:On September 19 2012 02:07 synapse wrote:On September 19 2012 02:02 ChThoniC wrote:On September 19 2012 01:52 Azarkon wrote:
[quote]
In 1895, China was losing every war vs. Japan and had no ability to protest Japanese annexations. Taiwan was annexed in the same year, in case you forgot.
In the 1970s, when the Senkaku / Diaoyu islands were returned to Japan by the US, both the ROC and the PRC DID protest.
A week ago, the Japanese government decided to take the issue further by nationalizing the islands. This sparked the protests, which turned into riots.
On the ground level, hatred for the Japanese is tangible and potent. Every Chinese I've met in China have expressed this.
It's obvious that this isn't just a government ploy. So from 1895 until 1970, there were no protests by China about these islands that belonged under the control of Japan, and then the US. Then in 1970 there was some protest, which lead to absolutely nothing, until 42 years later when the Japanese government bought the islands from a Japanese citizen. Governments buy property from citizens fairly often, but it never incites burning factories and smashing the cars of citizens, and looting Rolex and Dior. The vice "president" of China disappeared mysteriously for 2 weeks among civil unrest, and now suddenly appears again smiling that the citizens of China are rioting against Japan. Just coincidence? China wasn't really under any circumstance to contest the ownership of a small island through their civil war and WW2. Once everything settled down and the US returned the islands to Japan, China originally protested but it was Deng Xiaoping that kind of told everyone that this island wasn't really important and we could negotiate on it later. The territorial dispute has been going on for a long time, and the Japanese government suddenly buying it is easily seen as an insult. China signed documents saying that the land belonged to Japan, and then didn't say anything about it for 75 years, through two wars that lasted less than 30 years combined. It's absolutely nuts that this is leading to street riots, burning down factories, destroying malls, raiding stores that have no affiliation with Japan whatsoever (Rolex and Dior ??), and attacking people in public based on their nationality. If this is a real issue, why not take it to the ICJ? The reaction is totally ridiculous and makes it impossible to support what the Chinese people are doing, even if there's a valid dispute. The protests and riots aren't over the islands. The islands are the trigger, but the protests and riots go deeper. Haven't you been reading the thread? Uh, that's kind of what he was originally getting at. China is using historical tensions as an excuse to make a power move. Which is what he was wrong about. The tension is the cause of the protests / riots, and exists not because it's an 'excuse' but because it is a current running through all of Chinese society. He was saying that the Chinese government orchestrated it all, which goes against everything that's been said in the thread. This isn't an orchestrated move. This is a move that reflects the state of China-Japan relations. Both countries have been the other's most hated country for years now in global polls. All that pent up anger is finally boiling over. That's a matter of perspective and opinion. Yes, those tensions have always existed, but he and others raise a very, very hard-to-ignore point about this being a great time to divert attention from civil unrest to a "big bad guy." Except the trigger came from the Japanese side. Did the Chinese government orchestrate the Japanese nationalizing the islands too? Come on. Does it have to be as simple as one thread? Sure, Japan might have triggered the incident, but that doesn't mean China can't profit off a power move. This doesn't have to be impeccably pre-planned by China or anything.
Except that's what he's arguing - that this event came about because of China's orchestration, and not because of Japan's Shintaro Ishitara deciding that the leadership transition in China was the perfect opportunity for sticking it to China.
This incident is the fallout of a high profile Japanese right-wing leader who has effectively hijacked Japanese politics. The Japanese government's response to him shows that they're completely incapable of touching his position. The presence of Ishitara and those of his ilk have been antagonizing China and Korea for decades, and is the ultimate cause for the row.
Read the thread. This topic has been discussed a hundred times.
|
this is hilarious
so the island is owned by a japanese man for decades... and now china is saying they own it? wtf?
thats like china saying they own the island of maui or something.
this island was OWNED by someone who is japanese and purchased the ownership title from the japanese government. This means japan was controlling that island, it is their territory
if china comes in trying to take the territory, thats an invasion pure and simple. Doesnt matter where the land it, what matters is who owns it and whos trying to take it
right now, japan owns it and chinas trying to take it
sorry thats the truth butthurt chinese. your governments basically making up a whole bunch of nonsense to make you stop rioting against government oppression and start rioting against japan instead... rofl so easily mislead
Sorry chinese, do you have a problem that countries other than you are allowed to own land? seriously whats your problem... japan cant come in and claim parts of china for themselves, what makes you think you can come in and claim parts of japan for yourselves? its just stupid unless you want war to break out
its NOT about whether or not the land belonged to china long ago. Its pure and simple property law that most civilized nations follow. The chinese government never checked up on this island and tried to dispute that they owned it during the decades that its owner claimed ownership. No one else was disputing it so that means no one else owned it.
It doesnt even MATTER if the private owner of this island was not or was japanese, he owns the island, and property laws in civilized nations allow you to do with your land what you desire. If he wants to sell his land to the japanese OR the philipines OR the chinese it makes no difference.
what china SHOULD DO is offer 10 billion dollars for these islands to the owner, and the OWNER of these islands will decide to sell to china instead (if hes smart about it) because china has more money. China should also offer the owner of the island protection and sanctuary in china should the japanese government get mad at him and try to kill him.
If china did things the right way, by putting their higher offer on the table, then it would force the japanese to come in a "block the sale" which would actually be wrong on the japanese side and be a reason to protest.
But now, china doesnt want to buy the land from its private owner.. they just want to claim it as theirs wtf? sorry china thats not how civilized nations and property laws work. you BUY land, you dont steal it
|
This is just what the world needs...
And now this is the perfect political platform to bring these other two issues to the eyes of the world:
- The Hague convention of 1980 in regard to international parental abduction and the fact that Japan has not signed said convention. See video below for more information.
+ Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kaIY3KT6MtQ
The youtube video says it all perfectly, without error. The last I checked, roughly 1000 cases of this exist in American and Japanese divorced families, and almost 1000 from Korean~American divorced families, and 1000 between Chinese and Japanese divorced families.
and...
- Japanese hunting of Endangered species (whales, dolphins, etc.) in international waters.
Until these other two issues are addressed and foreigners are treated completely equally with Japanese citizens in their courts in all aspects, I will turn a blind eye to all of the lynchings, pillagings, protests, and plunders conducted by the Chinese.
and I whole-heartedly agree with the post that Kwark made that got in to the OP.
|
On September 19 2012 02:59 kaokentake wrote:
this is hilarious
so the island is owned by a japanese man for decades... and now china is saying they own it? wtf?
thats like china saying they own the island of maui or something.
this island was OWNED by someone who is japanese and purchased the ownership title from the japanese government. This means japan was controlling that island, it is their territory
if china comes in trying to take the territory, thats an invasion pure and simple. Doesnt matter where the land it, what matters is who owns it and whos trying to take it
right now, japan owns it and chinas trying to take it
sorry thats the truth butthurt chinese. your governments basically making up a whole bunch of nonsense to make you stop rioting against government oppression and start rioting against japan instead... rofl so easily mislead
Sorry chinese, do you have a problem that countries other than you are allowed to own land? seriously whats your problem... japan cant come in and claim parts of china for themselves, what makes you think you can come in and claim parts of japan for yourselves? its just stupid unless you want war to break out
its NOT about whether or not the land belonged to china long ago. Its pure and simple property law that most civilized nations follow. The chinese government never checked up on this island and tried to dispute that they owned it during the decades that its owner claimed ownership. No one else was disputing it so that means no one else owned it.
It doesnt even MATTER if the private owner of this island was not or was japanese, he owns the island, and property laws in civilized nations allow you to do with your land what you desire. If he wants to sell his land to the japanese OR the philipines OR the chinese it makes no difference.
what china SHOULD DO is offer 10 billion dollars for these islands to the owner, and the OWNER of these islands will decide to sell to china instead (if hes smart about it) because china has more money. China should also offer the owner of the island protection and sanctuary in china should the japanese government get mad at him and try to kill him.
If china did things the right way, by putting their higher offer on the table, then it would force the japanese to come in a "block the sale" which would actually be wrong on the japanese side and be a reason to protest.
But now, china doesnt want to buy the land from its private owner.. they just want to claim it as theirs wtf? sorry china thats not how civilized nations and property laws work. you BUY land, you dont steal it
You understand that the owner of the islands got the islands from the Japanese government, correct? That what China is contesting is not the Japanese man selling the islands, but Japan's annexation of them in 1895 to begin with?
|
On September 19 2012 02:59 Azarkon wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 02:53 Cedstick wrote:On September 19 2012 02:50 Azarkon wrote:On September 19 2012 02:49 Cedstick wrote:On September 19 2012 02:47 Azarkon wrote:On September 19 2012 02:44 Cedstick wrote:On September 19 2012 02:37 Azarkon wrote:On September 19 2012 02:34 ChThoniC wrote:On September 19 2012 02:07 synapse wrote:On September 19 2012 02:02 ChThoniC wrote:
[quote]
So from 1895 until 1970, there were no protests by China about these islands that belonged under the control of Japan, and then the US. Then in 1970 there was some protest, which lead to absolutely nothing, until 42 years later when the Japanese government bought the islands from a Japanese citizen.
Governments buy property from citizens fairly often, but it never incites burning factories and smashing the cars of citizens, and looting Rolex and Dior.
The vice "president" of China disappeared mysteriously for 2 weeks among civil unrest, and now suddenly appears again smiling that the citizens of China are rioting against Japan. Just coincidence? China wasn't really under any circumstance to contest the ownership of a small island through their civil war and WW2. Once everything settled down and the US returned the islands to Japan, China originally protested but it was Deng Xiaoping that kind of told everyone that this island wasn't really important and we could negotiate on it later. The territorial dispute has been going on for a long time, and the Japanese government suddenly buying it is easily seen as an insult. China signed documents saying that the land belonged to Japan, and then didn't say anything about it for 75 years, through two wars that lasted less than 30 years combined. It's absolutely nuts that this is leading to street riots, burning down factories, destroying malls, raiding stores that have no affiliation with Japan whatsoever (Rolex and Dior ??), and attacking people in public based on their nationality. If this is a real issue, why not take it to the ICJ? The reaction is totally ridiculous and makes it impossible to support what the Chinese people are doing, even if there's a valid dispute. The protests and riots aren't over the islands. The islands are the trigger, but the protests and riots go deeper. Haven't you been reading the thread? Uh, that's kind of what he was originally getting at. China is using historical tensions as an excuse to make a power move. Which is what he was wrong about. The tension is the cause of the protests / riots, and exists not because it's an 'excuse' but because it is a current running through all of Chinese society. He was saying that the Chinese government orchestrated it all, which goes against everything that's been said in the thread. This isn't an orchestrated move. This is a move that reflects the state of China-Japan relations. Both countries have been the other's most hated country for years now in global polls. All that pent up anger is finally boiling over. That's a matter of perspective and opinion. Yes, those tensions have always existed, but he and others raise a very, very hard-to-ignore point about this being a great time to divert attention from civil unrest to a "big bad guy." Except the trigger came from the Japanese side. Did the Chinese government orchestrate the Japanese nationalizing the islands too? Come on. Does it have to be as simple as one thread? Sure, Japan might have triggered the incident, but that doesn't mean China can't profit off a power move. This doesn't have to be impeccably pre-planned by China or anything. Except that's what he's arguing - that this event came about because of China's orchestration, and not because of Japan's Shintaro Ishitara deciding that the leadership transition in China was the perfect opportunity for sticking it to China. This incident is the fallout of a high profile Japanese right-wing leader who has effectively hijacked Japanese politics. The Japanese government's response to him shows that they're completely incapable of touching his position. The presence of Ishitara and those of his ilk have been antagonizing China and Korea for decades, and is the ultimate cause for the row.
Like I said, that's a very opinionated stance. As he seems to have bias, so do you, but either could argue deceptive motives on the other's side. I for one think the Chinese government has a lot of potential profit from this disagreement if things go their way, whereas your opinion is that the Japanese government decided to take this timing to buy a Japanaese-owned island just to spite the Chinese. I think I'm fairly neutral on the entire thing, but even if I were biased, that'd still account for ChThoniC's argument and, IMO, has a hell of a lot more credibility than, "Japan just wants to spite China."
|
On September 19 2012 03:04 Cedstick wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 02:59 Azarkon wrote:On September 19 2012 02:53 Cedstick wrote:On September 19 2012 02:50 Azarkon wrote:On September 19 2012 02:49 Cedstick wrote:On September 19 2012 02:47 Azarkon wrote:On September 19 2012 02:44 Cedstick wrote:On September 19 2012 02:37 Azarkon wrote:On September 19 2012 02:34 ChThoniC wrote:On September 19 2012 02:07 synapse wrote:
[quote]
China wasn't really under any circumstance to contest the ownership of a small island through their civil war and WW2. Once everything settled down and the US returned the islands to Japan, China originally protested but it was Deng Xiaoping that kind of told everyone that this island wasn't really important and we could negotiate on it later. The territorial dispute has been going on for a long time, and the Japanese government suddenly buying it is easily seen as an insult. China signed documents saying that the land belonged to Japan, and then didn't say anything about it for 75 years, through two wars that lasted less than 30 years combined. It's absolutely nuts that this is leading to street riots, burning down factories, destroying malls, raiding stores that have no affiliation with Japan whatsoever (Rolex and Dior ??), and attacking people in public based on their nationality. If this is a real issue, why not take it to the ICJ? The reaction is totally ridiculous and makes it impossible to support what the Chinese people are doing, even if there's a valid dispute. The protests and riots aren't over the islands. The islands are the trigger, but the protests and riots go deeper. Haven't you been reading the thread? Uh, that's kind of what he was originally getting at. China is using historical tensions as an excuse to make a power move. Which is what he was wrong about. The tension is the cause of the protests / riots, and exists not because it's an 'excuse' but because it is a current running through all of Chinese society. He was saying that the Chinese government orchestrated it all, which goes against everything that's been said in the thread. This isn't an orchestrated move. This is a move that reflects the state of China-Japan relations. Both countries have been the other's most hated country for years now in global polls. All that pent up anger is finally boiling over. That's a matter of perspective and opinion. Yes, those tensions have always existed, but he and others raise a very, very hard-to-ignore point about this being a great time to divert attention from civil unrest to a "big bad guy." Except the trigger came from the Japanese side. Did the Chinese government orchestrate the Japanese nationalizing the islands too? Come on. Does it have to be as simple as one thread? Sure, Japan might have triggered the incident, but that doesn't mean China can't profit off a power move. This doesn't have to be impeccably pre-planned by China or anything. Except that's what he's arguing - that this event came about because of China's orchestration, and not because of Japan's Shintaro Ishitara deciding that the leadership transition in China was the perfect opportunity for sticking it to China. This incident is the fallout of a high profile Japanese right-wing leader who has effectively hijacked Japanese politics. The Japanese government's response to him shows that they're completely incapable of touching his position. The presence of Ishitara and those of his ilk have been antagonizing China and Korea for decades, and is the ultimate cause for the row. Like I said, that's a very opinionated stance. As he seems to have bias, so do you, but either could argue deceptive motives on the other's side. I for one think the Chinese government has a lot of potential profit from this disagreement if things go their way, whereas your opinion is that the Japanese government decided to take the time to buy a Japanaese-owned island just to spite the Chinese. I think I'm fairly neutral on the entire thing, but even if I were biased, that'd still account for ChThoniC's argument and, IMO, has a hell of a lot more credibility than, "Japan just wants to spite China."
It isn't an opinionated stance. I've been following this incident from the beginning.
Read the major articles on the incident. Read the commentaries. Read the headlines.
It is fact, and people who want to brush it aside as 'opinion' have no idea what they're talking about. Period.
|
One thing for sure is I would not park my car in China ever lol
|
On September 19 2012 02:58 GreyKnight wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 02:42 baldgye wrote:
Be it nationalism, or religion people will always create 'justifications' for killing other people... sad, so very sad.
I think the bigger problem here is that China is basically the biggest super power in the world, and has no reason to listen to other nations to take the high road.
Japan where foolish and idiotic for poking at this point when China is basically at there most powerful post the US/EU financial crisis. Western media has really got you good. China is nowhere as powerful as they have villified them to be.
I'm not really sure what you mean? Thanks to them bailing out America in the financial crisis and the fall-out from wiki-leaks American and European ambassadors don't have the ear of the Chinese as they once did.
I'm not saying they are unstoppable, but realistically... America is pretty fully committed to the middle east at the moment and couldn't just re-deploy if things really got out of hand.
I'm not saying that China could launch some all out war and drop nukes... I'm saying that China could take the islands by force and there is little anyone (including Japan) could really do about it.
But if I'm 100% totally wrong then my bad, I don't claim to be an expert on China.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
