Outta here comments

Damn spell check..... Should have read

What do you expect when you get third world military to do something like this? Algeria is hardly well known for having special forces able to do hostage rescues. They should have let the US, UK, or even the French special forces deal with it.

On of course the Algerians are useless compared to use first world countries. How on earth can we expect them to achieve a good outcome.... Sarcasm intended there.

Funny you name France as one country that would do a better job than them.... Didnt the French have a bad rescue operation in the past week? The hostage was killed as was 2 of their soldiers ( one was left behind and died). Oh and the US didnt they actually kill a hostage in one raid a couple of years back in Iraq? But but they are first world militaries you say!!

Probie

What do you expect when you get third world military to do something like this? Algeria is hardly well known for having special forces able to do hostage rescues. They should have let the US, UK, or even the French special forces deal with it.

On of course the Algerians are useless compared to use first world countries. How on ear ca we expect them to achieve a good outcome.... Sarcasm intended there.

Funny you name France as one country that would do a better job than them.... Didnt the French have a bad rescue operation in the past week? The hostage was killed as was 2 of their soldiers ( one was left behind and died). Ohara the US didnt they actually kill a hostage in one raid a couple of years back in Iraq? But but they are first world militaries you say!!

Probie

Yeah, because they last assault weapon ban really worked! When was Columbine again? Oh, yeah, right in the middle of the last assault weapons ban.These kind of weapons are very rarely used. I think I read somewhere that 75% of gun crime related deaths, are due to gang violence, using 9mm handguns.

Your right, in addition to banning assault rifles and the like they should ban handguns as well. Quite simple.....

basroil

"What is it now, 4 incidents in about one week's time?" No, it's zero incidents, about half a dozen events. There is an engineering, legal, and necessary distinction between incidents/occurrences and simple events.

Sorry basroil you are incorrect these "events" are actually incidents. Anyone with experience in any industry would realise is. In all industry an "event" as you call it is referred to as an incident. The only thing that changes is the severity of the incident. To downplay it and merely call it an event is just a way of dumbing it down for people.

Psyops,

"The world recognises they belong to Japan" who exactly is this "world" you refer too?

Noliving

Curious but what are you basing this idea that rifles are too long to be used for home defense on? Soldiers clearly had no problem using their rifles in iraqi and afghani houses that is for sure. Why do swat teams storm houses in the US using M16s?

Um they don't! Most police tactical teams, military special forces etc use a shortened version of the M-4 (the m-4a1 or Mk-18 cqbr) which is about 10 inches shorter than the standard m-4 / ar-15. But don't feel bad its a common mistake :-)

basroil

And common sense argues another country's government has nothing to do with the internal politics of Japan.

Basroil, she is a French citizen, her government ordered the evacuation as such she was following the advice of her government. And yes it has nothing to do with the internal politics of Japan. Heck even Japan gives its citizens travel advice for other countries and that is what happened here. Imagine the outrage if a Japanese citizen working in France was told by the Japanese government to evacuate dissolved and lost their job.... The whining would be incessant...

Japanese government never ordered an evacuation of the country, so there's no legal right to leave her job.

Actually there is a legal right for her to leave. I will give you a personal example, my family was in Japan at the time of the disaster and even though the Japanese company said there was no risk our home company issued a directive that we could not travel any further north than Tokyo and if we did we would no longer be covered by them for any health or emergency support and any ongoing health issues that may arise would not be covered on our return to our home country. So what should we have done ignored this merely because the Japanese said it was safe.... Same thing with is poor woman her government, you know the one that she pays taxes to, the one she would return home to told her to leave Tokyo so she did.

Now, if she has a signed form from her boss stating that she was cleared to go until the time she requested, that's a different story, but since they are not even mentioning, let alone discussing, that, it looks like an open and shut case of an employee breaking contract.

Clearly the article states she had permission to go. Then to fire her should in any reasonable country be illegal.

I tend to agree with jefflee, as we have seen time and again with these type of people from this region they really only understand one thing and that is violence and death. To them anything less is not a lesson but a reward.

peanut666

Yeah, I get it hateful Americans. It was a necessity. Japan was already going to surrender.

Yeah right! They were going to surrender you claim..... They where still fighting, they where still preparing for an invasion, they where still killing. Hardly surrendering....

So you dropped an A-bomb on Hiroshima, which was mainly just filled with school children and their mothers since most of the men had gone off to war and killed 70,000 people.

Lol, funniest quote ever. So most men had gone off to war hey. Kinda forgetting all the military men stationed in the city. Familiar with Hiroshima castle?...... How about all the men working in the defence manufacturing industries in Hiroshima? You forgetting that.

Ground zero in Hiroshima was Shima hospital. Ground zero in Nagasaki was St. Mary's Cathedral . The largest Catholic church in the orient at the time. 75,000 people died in Nagasaki.

Actually the targets where not the hospital but rather the bridges several hundred meters away. Closer to Hiroshima castle and the imperial japanese headquarters....

All the fallacies regarding Japanese war atrocities in Asia are over exaggerated. Japan didn't target the civilians as much of the Chinese communist government wants you to believe.

Funny one. So how do you explain all the other nations other than china that had atrocities committed and civilians killed by your IJA? I find your comments disgusting and distasteful. But totally expected.

And before you go commenting on me being a brainwashed Chinese or American. I'm neither!!!

Dezertfox,

You claim Australia's crime rate went up after the banning of semi auto guns here. Prove it?

Oh and while your at it how many massacres (like those in the US) have we had since the gun bans?

Basroil,

Guess what, if you say it's safe doesn't make it so, if the j government says its safe doesn't make it so. Fact is, and anyone with business experience (as you have often said you have) would understand consumer confidence makes a massive difference and the issue here is the j government has been caught out to many times fiddling figures, farmers and other interest groups fudge figures and other data to try and pass off contaminated produce. And the fact that throughout this whole issue there have been so many cover ups makes people suspicious. Just because you say it's ok really means nothing and l can completely understand people's reluctance to eat produce from this region. And now that l am no longer in Japan I donor touch any food with a made in Japan sticker on it. Yes it may be safe but you know what, who knows after the way the j government and industry have carried on. Is that irresponsible? Not at all its called personal choice and the Japanese producers better learn to understand this.

Some 80 personnel from the SDF’s First Airborne Brigade rappelled from helicopters with parachutes

So what was it they rappelled from the helicopters or they parachuted from the helicopters? Its one or the other but cant be both.... Another example of award winning journalism......

Not to mention the two vessels being deployed are coast guard vessels not military vessels. Little bit misleading the way the article was written

Nigelboy,

The definition of sovereignty is irrelevant, your opinion is irrelevant. It is documented that many times by the US government that hy only gave administrative rights not sovereignty. And it's the US words that matter not your belief to mine end of story

Nigelboy,

Based on my understanding of the word, U.S. Did in fact give sovereignty to Japan in the 1971 agreement.

Well you would be wrong then.

was there an amendment by which both parties agreed to limit 'administration" only leaving out the exercise of any power regarding jurisdiction and legislation??

From US legal advisor re senkaku revision.

The Governments of the Republic of China and Japan are in disagreement as to sovereignty over the Senkaku Islands. You should know as well that the People’s Republic of China has also claimed sovereignty over the islands. The United States believes that a return of administrative rights over those islands to Japan, from which the rights were received, can in no way prejudice any underlying claims.

This was written October 20 1971 In response to the sec of state for the US. As previously stated he US returned administration not sovereignty. The US says it. It's documented, yet you deny it...

Nigelboy,

Late last month, the US senate passed an amendment reaffirming Washington's commitment to Japan on the Senkaku Islands, but repeated that it would not take sides on the sovereignty issue.

Enough said....

Nigelboy,

Many refer to this as "sovereignty".

Agreed many Japanese and pro Japanese indeed do. However the US doesn't and have specifically said as much in the past that while the Japanese administer the islands and the US support this it does not mean they are sovereign Japanese territory.

So because the US administered them after WW2 does that make them sovereign US territory? How about other nations that administer territory without sovereignty overt?

technosphere

Did Japanese Air Forces bomb warships in Darwin's harbour or civil population of Darwin? Did Japanese Air Forces bomb airfields nearby Darwin or civil population of Darwin?

REALLY! You really need me to answer this? They bombed both. Like they did in Singapore, Hong Kong, Manila, in fact you name a city or population center in the area the Japanese attacked and you will see that they bombed it regardless of its military value. You see it was the Japanese in the 30's that actually started bombing civilians as a terror weapon. But lm thinking you knew this....

First of all, it was not a "jorney". It was fighting most powerful military forces in Europe, a military machine of NAZIs. It was a work for real Warriors by comparison to, say cowardly actions like bombings cities filled by civilians.

Wow.... So the Russians never bombed cities or killed civilians hey? Funny, did you know the Russians bombed Berlin? Yes these brave warriors, the same brave warriors responsible for ethnic cleansing in Poland, the killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians in Estonia, Lithuania, Finland, Germany, and everywhere else they went. While they may not have used bombers to destroy whole cities like other nations (only because their airforce was not capable) they certainly found other ways to kill civilians much like the Japanese...

Second. Soviets liberated prisoners of Auschwitz and other death camps of NAZIs. In general, Soviets liberated Eastern Europe. So, what's your point?

Wow, the Soviets liberated Eastern Europe. Well maybe you should go talk to an eastern european and see how they felt about the Soviet liberation of their country and the subsequent occupation by soviet forces. My point is you quite ludicriously stated that the Soviets were warriors that didnt bomb (hence massacre) civilians. They may not have used bombers but they certainly where not the good clean whole some warriors that you claim that is my point.

You insist that American carpet bombings of Japanese cities and towns combined with nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were better, than liberation of prisoners of death camps in Europe?!

Nope never said that. Now did I?

But lets see the US and allied bombing of Japanese cities where a sad necessity bought about by Japans instigation of a war of aggression, its actions during that war of aggression, its refusal to surrender, its murder of innocents in their custody during the war and the wholesale order to murder ALL prisoners rather than let them fall back into allied hands. So where the bombings better than liberation of concentration camps. The two dont compare now do they?

Yes, 40 000 troops for entirely population of Hiroshima is a same scale comparison as a few armed policemen for entire WTC complex. What "terrorism" you are talking about? You even fail to understand that most amount of victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were not some mythic "40 000" troops but ordinary civilians, including women and children.

Lol, Lets see Hiroshima had a population of around 340,000 at the time of the bombings, if you take accepted figures of 40,000 troops that means 300,000 "civilians" which means for every 7 "civilians" there was a soldier. Also it is well documented that many children had been evacuated prior to the bombings (intact around 80,000 people had been evacuated prior to the bombing). Many of the "children" left in the city actually worked for the military in communications roles, in helping to clear fire lanes to stop fires spreading etc. Now if you had been to the Hiroshima memorial and read some of the stories about these children and their roles you would see most where still in the city doing roles for the civil defence and military. And according to the rules of war at the time this made them legitimate targets. You see it clearly states that civilians assisting the military in time of war cease being seen as civilians. Now if you actually researched the topic with some unbiased view you would see that the headquarters at Hiroshima castle was in charge of a mere 400,000 men fighting in the southern pacific region (the 2nd Army), as was the 59th army which was responsible for the defence of Japan itself and most of its command staff where killed during the bombing. Now if you also did your research you would be aware that Hiroshima castle apart from being the headquarters of these two army groups was also a major communications centre (employing children to run messages, operate telephone equipment etc). So if you cared to do some research you would soon see that rather than a "civilian" city Hiroshima was a vast military complex with "civilians" living there.....

technosphere

A couple of dozen of civilians onboard an air craft carrier doesn't transform war ship into civilian cruise liner. 40 000 soldiers inside a city with big civilian population did not transform a city into military camp.

Its funny you know, just last year on this site there was an article about the commemoration services in Darwin remembering the Japanese raids on that city. And some Japanese posters here used the argument that Darwin was a legitimate military target because there where warships in the harbour and a military airfield and presence in the city. Yet when Hiroshima or Nagasaki are mentioned as legitimate military targets we have arguments like yours thrown up. I find that amusing. So a couple of ships and a few planes make an allied city a legitimate target in many pro Japan posters eyes. Yet a military regional headquarters (at Hiroshima castle), a major communications hub for the military (again Hiroshima), large military industrial complex (at both cities) and a major military port with repair and shipbuilding facilities are not good enough when it comes to bombing Japan...... I can see your logic, the Japanese can bomb what they want at will no issues. The allies bomb Japan and suddenly its a war crime, a disgusting act. Its amusing even the peace memorial in Hiroshima acknowledges the military in both cities and that they where the target.

Soviets were warriors, not infamous cowards. They did not bomb cities and towns of Japan. Because there are neither courage nor honour in bombings of cities with civilian population.

Again. Amusing.... They were warriors that dont bomb civilians hey. Maybe you should look at what they did on their journey through eastern Europe and then revise your statement to Japan should consider itself lucky the Soviets didnt do to them what they did in Eastern Europe.

True. Further, according to "american way of logic", WTC was also a legitimate target for 9/11 hijackers. Americans insist that "40 000 soldiers inside Hiroshima made that city a military base". According to this wonderful logic, a few armed policemen or members of security unit inside WTC towers automatically transformed WTC into warehouse of weaponry.

Again, unbelievable.... You compare 40,000 soldiers. Troops that have fought in places like Burma, DEI, Singapore, Papua and other battle grounds. Troops that have murdered, raped, and burnt their way across countless regions killing allied soldiers, POW's and civilians with out remorse. And you compare these to a few police and security at WTC..... Wow what warped planet is that logic from. The WTC attacks where terrorism, had those attacks been carried out on purely military targets (Pentagon, defence industry etc) then in my mind they would have been while not justified but not as disgusting.

Debucho

Outta Here you are a little misinformed. The Senkaku islands were given back to Japan by the US in 1971 with Okinawa and the US congress recently approved an official statement that the Senkaku islands belong to Japan.

Debucho, l think it is you that is a little misinformed. The US didnt give the islands to Japan. They gave Japan administration of the islands NOT sovereignty. That is a very very big difference. Not to mention the US has while reaffirming Japanese ADMINISTRATION of the islands always said that does not legitimise Japan's claim to sovereignty over the islands and intact the US has stated it has no opinion on that matter and that the parties should seek a peaceful outcome I.e. ICJ.

The US clearly recognizes the islands as Japan's which is why China might fly around like a little fly but they would never dare touch those islands or risk getting spanked by the US.

Again the US recognises Japan's administration off the islands and nothing more. If you have a quote that disputes this please put it forward...

They did not violate territorial airspace over the islands but flew inside Japan’s so-called air defense identification zone, the report said.

Yeah, claimed by Japan recognised by no-one else! Funny how when its Japan claiming land and waters they scramble their military. But when Japan enters other nations claimed waters they say tough luck we can do as we please! A karma is good. As much as l don't really like china it's good to see them giving Japan grief....,

Hide Suzuki

Do you realize that people back then didn't have an option ? It's not like most people chose to produce weapons. They were forced to do so most of the time by the Japanese government back then.

An the old, l didn't have a choice they made me do it argument. The same argument that was tried during the war crime trials by those accused of war crimes. I suppose one that cheered at the news of the Nanking massacre where also forced to do it by the government. You see there is a rather moving picture at one of you memorials (l think from memory yasukuni shrine) showing Japanese celebrating the news of the Nanking massacre, l suppose you will argue they where forced by the government as well?

And somehow they dropped A-bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, not Tokyo.

Why would they drop it on Tokyo? There was no military value left in Tokyo to bomb. Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki still had military industry and military formations despite already being bombed ( in the case of Nagasaki). Why bomb a destroyed city with no industry and lots of allied POW's (like the ones locked in the animal cages at Ueno zoo, eh don't me toon that on the zoo tour now do they?)

Especially the second one in Nagasaki was 100% unnecessary. They just did it because they didn't want Russia to invade into Japan. Yeah, that's a good enough reason to kill over 100,000 people. .

Wow, you are upset about the death of a 100,000 Japanese from a bombing. What about the millions that the Japanese killed. You complain about 100,000 killed in a bombing, how about the hundreds of thousands killed in Nanking. How about the thousands of prisoners killed while in Japanese custody. What about the imperial order that ALL POWs where to be executed in Japan if the allies invaded? That's right lets forget all them and worry about 100,000 Japanese who mind you where not all civilians, who stayed after the Japanese started evacuating the cities, who ignored the US warnings dropped to them, who worked as part of the military establishment. Yeah you see when you say they killed 100,000 people that honestly does sound bad l agree. But how many of them where soldiers? How many working in military related occupations? How many stayed despite the Japanese evacuations? And most damning how many people did the Japanese in their rampage?

I will say l would hate to ever see a nuke used in anger ever again. But more than that l would hate to see a nation conduct a murderous spree like Japan did. And if it took a nuke to stop the carnage. Well so be it....

technosphere

I know an American myth about "necessary evil". No need to be a veteran of WW II for making valid conclusions. Your military leaders dropped A-bombs on japanese cities, filled by civilians. Not on naval harbour or, say military base but right on heads of innocent women and children. By the way, Imperial Japanese Air Forces bombed Pearl Harbour. Japanese did not bomb american cities.

Well let see, you obviously forgot that hiroshima was infact a major military industrial center, it was the departure point for forces fighting in the southern pacific area and was also the headquarters for those forces. Hiroshima castle was used as the headquarters building as well as a major communications hub. They used young kids to run their military messages from the castle. Nagasaki was a majorposer and shipbuilding facility as well as other arms manufacture. Infact a mere 90% of the cities workforce where directly involved in arm manufacture.

The other thing about these cities, they did not have large POW camps near them unlike say Nagoya or other cities. And given that the Japanese government had ordered that all POWs where to be killed in the event of an invasion. Well the bombs actually died save some lives.

You also say the Japanese didn't bomb US cities. Correct but they certainly bombed many other nations cities killing thousands in not hundreds of housands of civilians......

OssanAmerica

Japan doesn't need to firm up surveillance. It needs to construct an outpost either JCG or JMSDF and guard the area.

Yeah that will really stabilise the issue. Japan building military outposts on a disputed island. Way to escalate the issue. Maybe china will do it first then what

China's explanations for it's maritime and aircraft intrusions being justified because it's Chinese territory is nonsense. It is Japanese territory to which China has a claim.

Yes according to who? Ah that's right, its Japanese sovereign territory according to Japan. And Japan alone...... So china claims its there territory, Japan claims no it's theirs...... Well sorry but until it is determined the ICJ then really its merely Japan claiming and china claiming with no support from other nations for either claim.

In the civilized when you have a claim to something you don't just start using it like it's yours, you follow legal procedures to validate your claim. The ICJ , Japan and the rest of the world is waiting for China to act like a civilized country.

Funny but that is summing up Japan's actions to a tee...... Great point

Ah well all is fixed now that the government has apologised..... Isn't that how it works, a bow, a many sollies and all is fixed

Tamarama,

Yeah if bobby boy can screw the whalers like he screwed the Australian public over then the whalers are buggered.

Herve Nmn L'Eisa,

So the good people are left defenceless and vulnerable hey? I would rather live in a country with tight gun laws like Australia, UK, Japan anyday over living in the likes of the US. at least you are not likely to be on the receiving end of a gun massacre which happens all to often in the US. Yet sadly the people in the US are too slow to realise more guns = more gun crime and massacres. Not the other way around.

So Japan is going to increase surveillance around islands it claims as its own all to counter china doing the same around the same islands it claims.....

USNinJapan2

Outta here Watson personally is wanted by Interpol, whet ever he does, wherever he goes. Nothing to do with US law and the limits of its jurisdiction or the registries of the SS vessels.

Sorry but where in my comment did l mention Watson. I was responding to another posters comment where he says SS has to stay away from the Japanese whalers. Or did you miss that bit?

Probie,

Nothing to do with it. It is the SS who have to stay away, not just the fat fool. He stepped down because he's probably scared of being arrested.

Lets see. The SS ships are foreign registered not US registered. As stated in the article SS Australia is running this campaign not SS US so any actions by an Australian run operation using foreign registered vessels puts this beyond the jurisdiction of the US courts. As US law does not impact Australians or what they do.

Despite the headline of the story there is not one quote from the document stating that they are part of Okinawa as the headline claims. Rather it questions whether it is part of Taiwan. So another case of Japanese right wing media twisting the story to suit its agenda?