tictactogo comments

Posted in: Japan, S Korea reject report of WWII forced labor economic plan See in context

@Tom Doley

In case you didn't know, Hatoyama is no longer Gov official (nor made this statement as JP official recognition at his time of Prime Minister), therefore, his recent comments are NOT from the "previous government". Noone in Japan care what "Loopy" thinks or says, he only repeats what Korea and China want to hear to gain his attention. As I noted somewhere, the freedom of speech is constitutionally protected and they don't get arrested, socially terminated, or even killed unlike some countries nearby Japan.

Here is the statement by Kono which you conveniently cherrypicked.

But the significance of the Japanese government’s recognition of the individual right to make claims has gone through several permutations, and the current interpretation is that individuals have the right to make claims, but cannot exercise that right in court. In his response, Kono also repeated the standard position that “the issue of making claims between South Korea and Japan was completely and finally resolved by the two countries’ treaty.

http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_international/870655.html

This recognition always had been JP gov stance ever since the treaty was signed in 1965 so prove me wrong if you can.

16 ( +16 / -0 )

Posted in: Japan, S Korea reject report of WWII forced labor economic plan See in context

@Tom Doley

Since you seem to complicate this uncomplicated matter, let me make it simple for you.

Japan and Korea signed a peace treaty in 1965 by the agreement for Japan to provide $800 million in grants which include compensation on behalf of individual victims and for both parties to give up any claims associating 1910-1945 period. Since SK rejected JP's proposal to compensate directly to individual victims, SK was responsible to manage how to settle individual compensations domestically. As of course, Japan has no jurisdiction over Korean individual rights to claim so no Japanese officials ever denied the individual right to file a claim and this official stance is consistent since after 1965 treaty. What Japan basically saying is "Korean individuals can file their claims all they want, but this issue is already resolved between JP and SK by 1965 peace treaty. If you have a problem, go complain SK gov."

Koreans seem to claim "Japan is not denying individual rights to claim" as if this is something new but I really don't understand why Koreans think it would make any difference.

16 ( +17 / -1 )

Posted in: Japan, S Korea reject report of WWII forced labor economic plan See in context

@Chip Star

When will Jaian stop trying to break the San Francisco Peace Treaty by dropping its claims to the Kurils?

When will Koreans ever learn to do least fact-checks before open up their mouths and learn to stop introducing this type of false equivalence?

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2019/06/03/national/politics-diplomacy/soviet-documents-reveal-moscows-view-territory-seized-japan-end-wwii/#.XbgVHiVcXDs

Let me ask you a dumb question, did Russia (former Soviet Union) sign SF Peace Treaty?

21 ( +25 / -4 )

Posted in: Japan, S Korea weigh creation of fund amid spat over wartime labor See in context

Guys, Reuters reported Chief Cabinet Secretary Suga officially denied Kyodo's article and JoongAng Ilbo also reported Korean MOFA denied it too, so thIs article is most likely a fake news. Let’s just hope for JP gov not to repeat the same mistake again.

8 ( +8 / -0 )

Posted in: Abe renews call on S Korea to keep promises in order to mend ties See in context

@showchinmono

Is it not-refuted or too amazed for anyone to bother ?

I really feel you. No matter how many times we’ve explained to them, they’ll just ignore and repeat the same things over and over (China case is this, Germany did that, Russia said that, etc etc) to deflect the point of argument. I even know what’s gonna come next. “I didn’t say this, Japanese lawyers said it! or Hatayama said this and that!” They can’t seem to understand a freedom of speech and expression is constitutionally protected in Japan and they don’t get arrested or socially terminated or even killed just because they speak up something that goes against their mass-narratives.

18 ( +24 / -6 )

Posted in: Coast Guard searching for North Korean fishing boat reported to have sunk See in context

So let me get this straight.

NK is asking JP coast guard with JP taxpayers’ money to search for NK’s fishing boat who were illegally fishing under JP’s EEZ?

11 ( +11 / -0 )

Posted in: Aichi exhibition closed over Korean 'comfort woman' statue reopens See in context

It's not even a 'finished' historical event, there are two Koreas for a reason.

I’m sorry, what does this have anything to do with Japan? Oh that’s right, every single problem in Korea are all Japan’s faults, no questions asked.

3 ( +8 / -5 )

Posted in: S Korean fighter jet patrols over islands disputed by Japan See in context

@Tom Doley

You and fellow Japanese revisionists seem to think that the Rusk memo/letter/note overide SCAPIN 677.

How can we "revise" history while our claim is strictly based on the primary source of evidence?

It’s a one directional memo by the US for its own military interest and supported by persistent Japanese lobbying. It wasn’t even the ultimate agreement, and certainly did not overide the provisional agreement.

Have you actually read Rusk doc? It was U.S. official letter in response to a request from the South Korean Ambassador to recognize Liancourt Rocks as Korean territory and when did anyone claimed it ought to override SCAPIN677?

Japan signed the Potsdam declaration, SCAPIN 677 and the Peace treaty, with only SCAPIN specifically excluding Dokdo from Japanese territory. That was the ultimate agreement Japan signed with respect to Dokdo. All when Korea wasn’t even at the negotiating table.

Ultimate agreement?? Triring already pointed out how Koreans conveniently ignore 6th paragraph of SCAPIN667.

"None of the provisions in this Directive should be construed as indicating the Allied policy on the final decision of the small island in Article 8 of the Potsdam Declaration. “This is a provisional directive."

Here is the primary source of SCAPIN667 in case you start calling us "revisionists" again.

https://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/area/takeshima/pdfs/g_taisengo01.pdf

Besides, many islands including Liancourt Rocks were separated from Japan at this point but it didn’t mean all of them are not Japanese islands. Many of them including the Ryukyu islands, Izu Islands, Nanpo Islands, Bonin and Volcano Islands etc were later returned to Japan. So this “separation” didn’t mean the separation of sovereignty.

Here is more.

*"The action of the United States-Japan Joint Committee in designating these rocks as a facility of the Japanese Government is therefore justified. The Korean claim, based on SCAPIN 677 of January 29, 1946, which suspended Japanese administration of various island areas, including Takeshima (Liancourt Rocks), did not preclude Japan from exercising sovereignty over this area permanently.  A later SCAPIN, No. 1778  of September 16, 1947 designated the islets as a bombing range for the Far East Air Force and further provided that use of the range would be made only after notification through Japanese civil authorities to the inhabitants of the Oki Islands and certain ports on Western Honsu."*

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Confidential_Security_Information_about_Liancourt_Rocks

I know Koreans are too deeply brainwashed and will keep on denying or ignoring any of these primary source of evidence to hide behind anti-Japan narrative, so Japan had been suggesting to let the third party involved to settle this matter at ICJ. If you are denying that you are brainwashed, why don't you urge your gov to settle this matter at ICJ? I don't wanna hear any of "Well it's ours anyway because we say so, why risk going to ICJ" BS.

And for your info, even the US now accepts Dokdo as Korean.

Lol, says who?

4 ( +7 / -3 )

Posted in: S Korean fighter jet patrols over islands disputed by Japan See in context

@Heckleberry

Can't be much worse than the Japanese, brainwashed since birth to believe they were the victims of WW2, only trying to protect neighbouring Asian countries.

And how did you get this idea from? Your education perhaps?

"In contrast to American and Chinese textbooks Japanese history textbooks offer no strong narrative about the war. This is surprising given that many different war stories circulate in Japan’s public discourse and popular culture: as a war of aggression that did great damage to the peoples; as a war for the liberation of Asia from Western colonialism; as a war fought by heroic but doomed soldiers; as a war that the Japanese people themselves “victims”; and so forth. None of these stories find their way into the Japanese textbooks in undiluted form. Compared to the American and Chinese history textbooks their tone is muted, neutral, and almost bland. Perhaps it is this affectless neutrality that so infuriates not only the Japanese right-wing but also Chinese and Korean critics. The Japanese history textbooks do not tell the stories that they want to hear—or are used to hearing."

"Coverage of the war is quite limited in Korean textbooks, which focus primarily on the anti-Japanese resistance movements. No mention is made of the war in Europe, reference to the war in China is limited, and no mention is made of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki."

https://fsi-live.s3.us-west-1.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/Divided-Memory_In-house_2008.pdf

Back to the topic, is there any Koreans who can't sing Dokdo song? Have you ever research how much does JP gov teach Liancourt Rocks contents through their education system as compared to how much in SK? You'll see who is actually brainwashed here.

8 ( +13 / -5 )

Posted in: S Korean fighter jet patrols over islands disputed by Japan See in context

@Tom Doley

Hey Japan get over it. Dokdo is and has always been a Korean territory historically and geographically. Heck even historical Japanese records denounced ownership of Dokdo. Ditto with Daioyudao and Ryukyu islands.

I guess this is a common acknowledgement among Koreans in general resulted by brainwashing education. These islets legitimately belong to Japan in accordance with International Law (Terra nullius) as long as SK fails to provide the concrete evidence that SK had an "effective control" over Liancourt Rocks before 1905. Not a single evidence out of enormous historical evidence by Koreans so far had any indication of "effective control". Prove me wrong if you can. Please note that Samit's comment about "it never was Terra nullius" is invalid because there was no "official complaint by Korean gov" after Japan's incorporation of Liancourt Rocks went headline news in 1906.

7 ( +13 / -6 )

Posted in: S Korean fighter jet patrols over islands disputed by Japan See in context

@Heckleberry

Did you actually read what I wrote? There clearly is disagreement between JP and SK, hence JP proposed to settle the issue in ICJ like how civilized nations do. I can go on with why they don't belong to SK but Koreans wouldn't listen, would they?

7 ( +12 / -5 )

Posted in: S Korean fighter jet patrols over islands disputed by Japan See in context

@Heckleberry

It doesn’t give SK a legit excuse for running away to settle this dispute since after SK INVADED these islets from Japan when Japan was completely disarmed, does it?

8 ( +13 / -5 )

Posted in: Apple launches iPhone 11 series in Japan See in context

There always are hard-core fans for many things that might be considered worthless to others, so just leave them alone and let them be what they want.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Posted in: South Korea initiating WTO complaint over Japan trade curbs See in context

Could someone explain to me how Japan is benefiting from this dispute?

If you have a neighbor constantly accusing you for something that you didn’t do, repeatedly demanding money and apologies based on that, stealing your legitimate assets, breaking every agreements in the past, and spreading lies everywhere only to humiliate you, what would you do? Wouldn’t you say enough is enough? That’s what’s happening right now (about the time!).

So to answer your question, it is the most beneficial for Japan to keep the distance with SK as much as possible and just watch them destroy themselves. There is much more to gain than lose for Japan by cutting relationship with SK.

16 ( +18 / -2 )

Posted in: S Korean lawmakers visit disputed islets as Japan tensions mount See in context

One irony Koreans don't realize is that their recent high-court verdict of negating 1965 treaty would give Japan a legitimate right to demand for an apology and compensation for capturing 328 ships and 3,929 fishermen (in which 44 were killed by Korean) between 1952 to 1965.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Japan OKs first S Korea high-tech export since curbs, but with a warning See in context

This is what brainwashing education does to children. The most of alive Koreans today are raised and educated this way, there are noone to stop this nonsense so what do you expect?

25 ( +33 / -8 )

Posted in: Japan says S Korea export curb not retaliation for court rulings See in context

Instead of complaining about the economic privilege taken away due to the security concerns as JP gov had been explaining over and over, shouldn't Koreans be more worried about upcoming retaliation once Korean plaintiffs start cashing out seized assets?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Posted in: Japan, South Korea clash at WTO over trade dispute See in context

@Samit Basu

The WTO rules require all nations to sell to each other without restriction in quantity.

Japan's export control violates the WTO rule by artificially limiting the number of shipment to Korea.

This is a very clear cut case of WTO rule violation, 3 specific rules to be exact.

Have you been actually reading News at all? Removing RoK from whitelist (preferential treatment) is NOT "artificially limiting the number of shipment", it simply is taking away a special privilege of security free-pass and treat RoK with the same equal status with all other Asian nations. RoK is just acting like a spoiled brat complaining that his toy was taken away because of his misbehavior.

The only exception allowed on no export control rule is if two countries are about to go to war. So the only defense that Japan can make when Korea takes Japan to the WTO for export control is that Japan thought Japan and Korea were about to go to war during the summer of 2019.

Not necessarily so. Japan is not currently in a state of war with North Korea, are they? Japan should simply treat South Korea in the same way with North Korea since we don't see much difference in them so why should Japan treat South Korea differently?

Politics have no bearing on trade matters.

Right, "Two-track strategy" as President Moon proclaims. "We will continue to bash the heck out of Japan for historical issues but we will expect economic support from Japan because politic and economic matters should be separated". Do you have any idea how it sounds from Japanese perspective?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Posted in: Japan, South Korea clash at WTO over trade dispute See in context

Can someone please explain how does removing ROK from whitelist enlisted in 2004 would violate the free trade? ROK is the only country enlisted in its whitelist and Japan have every rights to add or remove any time they want, so why are they complaining?

Considering Japan's overwhelming pardons historically given to ROK for consistent rudeness and disrespectful manners, it was quite surprising that Japan took the action on July 4th without prior notice (although ROK had been ignoring Japan's request of bilateral talks for 3 years) so I can understand series of incidents during past one year had somehow contributed Japan to come up with their decision this time. Nevertheless, it is completely up to Japan to decide whether to remove ROK from the whitelist and Japan doesn't require any explanation.

@Heckleberry

But it was a court decision that triggered all of this. In SK the judicial system is independent of the governing party. This is not Japan where a corrupt polly would attempt to influence the jucidial system.

No one would complain no matter how absurd the court verdict would be as long as it stays domestic and NOT to intervene with diplomatic treaties.

@Chip Star

Yeah, South Korea was also a real victim of Japan in WWII. It's not worth engaging you beyond ridiculing your blind support for Japan and hatred of Sourh Korea.

In 1943 (before the national conscription in Sept 1944), 303,394 Korean ethics volunteered to participate in WW2 and only 1.9% were accepted. So who is playing ridicule and blind by pretending to be victim here?

What Koreans need to understand now is that the reconciliation between ROK and Japan will not succeed if Koreans continue to play historical victims because Japan is not as ignorant as they used to be. If you choose to deny what Japan has to say and keep hiding behind anti-Japan narratives, then you can forget about the reconciliation because Japan really don't need Korea as you are starting to observe their change in behavior.

2 ( +7 / -5 )

Posted in: Japan may take S Korea wartime labor dispute to International Court of Justice: NHK See in context

Here is a summary of what's going here.

[Japan] South Korea top court verdict simply cannot be acceptable. Japan settled the issue with South Korea signed by 1965 peace treaty so why are you pretending like it was never there?

[Korea] Well, South Korean government cannot intervene with the decision made by the court system because we honor the separation of powers.

[Japan] So whatever happened to the money that were paid in 1965 which you apparently spent away for something else?? Why don't we take this to the next step with arbitration process then?

[Korea] (after kept silence for several months) Well, if you agree to pay money with the joint fund by Japanese and South Korean corporations, then we will think about the arbitration process.

[Japan] ?? What? What we are saying is South Korean gov is responsible to settle this matter domestically because we've already paid money in the past. And now you are saying you'll think about starting the negotiation only if Japan agrees to pay money again??

[Korea] Well, like we said, our gov cannot intervene with the jurisdiction because we honor the separation of powers.

[Japan] Ok, this is not going anywhere, if you don't respond to accept the arbitration process by 7/18, we'll take this issue to ICJ.

Since SK didn't respond by the due date, I guess they shouldn't be in the position to complain. Also, I'm quite amazed by optimistic Koreans who think they have a slightest chance to win this case in ICJ that I've seen here and there like "individual damages weren't included in Treaty", "Japan also admitted that individual rights to claim their damages", "ICJ would reveal horrible things Japan did to Asia", "the whole world would take sides with SK because Japan is a flatout evil" and so forth.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Posted in: Tensions over history, North keep Japan, South Korea at odds See in context

I wanna know if there are any criteria or threshold for disabling comments. When it comes to Japan vs Korea disputes, pro/anti comments are most always expected so why not just disabling comments when published?

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Posted in: Japan rebuffs Seoul's calls to scrap export curbs See in context

Accused, but not proven by every single country. Just because you accuse someone of something does not make them guilty. Then again, in Japan, you are always guilty until proven guilty.

I totally agree with you except for the last sentence. Based on what I’ve seen since early 1990s, “In Korea, Japan is always guilty because that’s the way supposed to be, period”. Koreans had been accusing Japan relentlessly without proofs. Oh that’s right, Japan burnt them into ashes. Lol

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Posted in: S Korean court orders Nippon Steel to pay damages over wartime labor See in context

@Samit Basu

Not sure your intention of ignoring evidence that are presented to you by many other posters before, your claim of "damages were not included in 1965 treaty" is not valid because the dialogue of negotiating process for 1965 agreement (which was kept hidden to Korean public and finally disclosed in 2005) clearly noted Korean gov rejected Japanese gov proposal to compensate for damages (including pains/sufferings) directly to individual victims and Korean gov insisted to manage domestically.

Japan will surely submit this dialogue as evidence when they bring this case to ICJ (as how 1386 Korean plaintiffs submitted when they sued Korean government end of last year), so you should stop repeating same-old lies over and over to deceive people who are not familiar with Korean related subject matters.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Posted in: Outlook uncertain for Japan's whaling industry despite commercial restart See in context

@Patricia Yarrow

It’s not for you to decide which animal is more superior than others.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

Posted in: Outlook uncertain for Japan's whaling industry despite commercial restart See in context

@nandakandamanda

I think everyone foresees a dying course of whaling market in Japan. I'm neither pro or against whaling but I believe Whaling is one of the oldest traditions in Japan but no longer considered as a part of their culture, so everyone should respect their attempt to sustain their tradition as long as it doesn't destroy the global ecosystem. Japan gov can teach and embrace Whaling tradition as much as they want and they can even serve Whale dishes every single day across Japan, but it still doesn't change my opinion of its dying market simply because "it just doesn't taste so good". The taste can be very subjective but I don't think there are too many people who prefer Whales over all other available foods in the supermarket. As long as the most of people have a choice to select what food to eat, Whales will not be on the top of their list for sure. In other words, I can become pro-whaling if it start tasting good somehow and I will start eating whales if I have nothing else to eat.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Posted in: Outlook uncertain for Japan's whaling industry despite commercial restart See in context

@nandakandamanda

IMO a school lunch at Shimonoseki city won’t be significant enough to revitalize a dying whale market. There are much tastier and less expensive foods available and I don’t think Education can change the preference of what they really enjoy eating.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Posted in: Outlook uncertain for Japan's whaling industry despite commercial restart See in context

@girl_in_tokyo

I think everyone is entitled to have an opinion regardless of their nationality, race, religion, etc. It becomes an issue when one starts criticizing, insulting, propagandizing, telling what to do, or causing any harms based on his/her opinion.

For this Whaling case, it's ok for people to have an opinion of anti-whaling based on whatever their beliefs or reasons, but at the same time, it's ok for people to have an opposite opinion as well. When you start openly criticizing Japan for whaling based on your belief, then you should also expect a counter argument (If you say "Japan should not hunt whales because they are intelligent mammals" then you need to prepare for the type of question "Why not pigs? Why only Japan?").

As some of posters are saying, I believe it is just a matter of time for Japan to stop whaling, not because the majority outside of Japan says so, but simply because it's a dying market. There won't be a supply if the demand is insignificant. But hey, it is just my opinion afterall.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Posted in: Japan rejects S Korean fund plan to compensate forced wartime laborers See in context

@Ex_ResToday

For the sake of argument, please enlighten us.

SK is only doing what Japan has done for decades.

What and when exactly Japan ever negated or violated the international agreement or treaty between ROK and Japan?

At least SK does not take hostages.

SK is the one who is attempting to hold down JP corp's assets (as a hostage) to milk more money from Japan, so what exactly are you talking about?

1) Japans occupation and ruling of the peninsula was brutal, as it was in many other Asian countries

Current SK and NK was under JP occupation since 1910 until 1945 (end of WW2) through the legitimate annexation process supported by the international laws so what "many other Asian countries" are you talking about? Anyone who objects to Korean narrative of "brutality of Japanese occupation" in Korea are either killed or thrown into jail or socially terminated permanently. I don't think Koreans care about Hard Facts but you should start looking into the living conditions of Koreans before and after the annexation period instead of hiding behind "Japan is an absolute evil" fantasy.

2) English-speaking world sees history as it was, and not the re-written history taught in Japan.

What is your supporting evidence to prove your case here? As far as Japan sees, the constant nagging and whining of historical complaints by Koreans were mostly fabricated after 1990s. That's what I call "re-writing the history". Explain how does Japan re-write the history like the way Koreans do?

8 ( +8 / -0 )

Posted in: Japan rejects S Korean fund plan to compensate forced wartime laborers See in context

Well, ignoring hard facts isn't going to negate them now is it?

While Koreans ignore hard facts that Nazi holocaust has nothing to do with Japan, why waste our time? Koreans need to realize that their typical manipulation of introducing Germany don't seem to work nowadays.

10 ( +11 / -1 )

Posted in: Japan rejects S Korean fund plan to compensate forced wartime laborers See in context

South Korea said on Wednesday it had proposed a joint fund with Japan to compensate South Koreans forced to work by Japanese companies during World War Two, but Japan rejected the idea out of hand.

This is not accurate. What SK proposed was they will consider nominating a candidate for Arbitration Committee (which Japan requested on May 20th) under condition that Japan agrees to compensate Korean plaintiffs with a joint fund by JP and SK corporations.

"韓国企業と日本企業が拠出した財源から確定済みの大法院判決の原告への慰謝料の支払に充てることに日本政府が同意するならば請求権協定に基づく協議を受け入れる旨発表がありました"

https://twitter.com/konotarogomame/status/1141260511880740864

So what they are basically saying is "SK gov will think about engaging in negotiation to settle this issue with Japan only if Japan agrees to pay money as a prerequisite condition". While this whole issue was already settled completely by 1965 treaty, what kind of proposal is this?? Of course it's gonna be rejected and I'll be shocked if SK didn't see that coming!

10 ( +10 / -0 )

Recent Comments

Popular

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites


©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.