WatchingStuff comments

The Korean team lost because they were arrogant. Once they were up 2 goals, they got lazy and decided to stall the rest of the match. They already qualified for the Olympics and were up 2 points, whats the point of going all out?

Big mistake.

When Japan eventually recovered, it was too late for the Korean team to make a comeback.

Why should Korea remove the statue when it made no promises to do so? Quit trying to shift the goal post.

CH3CHO

You still haven't been able to show or prove that Korea agreed to remove the statue. Just admit that you're wrong and that Korea never made such a promise.

But later in the day, he reversed course and retracted the remarks, saying in a statement reported by public broadcaster NHK: “My comments could create misunderstanding. I sincerely apologise to those who were troubled.”

What misunderstanding?

You flat out accused these women of being prostitutes. If it wern't for your higher ups, you would still be sticking by your disgusting statement.

@ OssanAmerica

A statue of a rape victim is not a hate monument. The deal is irreversible. Japan is breaking code by demanding the statues be removed after the deal was already agreed upon. The Korean government has gone out and stated that no such demand was made.

@ DieRealityCheck

The previous article we were debating on expired. I can't add new comments to it. Want to continue to discussion on reddit?

CH3CHO

Nowhere in your post does it state that the Korean government agreed to remove the statue. In fact, a South Korean minister told the press that they never made such a promise.

Why is Japan being so dishonest here? The statue stays whether they like it or not.

@F4HA604

Where in the deal did South Korea agree to remove the statue?

Since Japan agreed to apologize and compensate these women, why do they demand the statues be removed AFTER the deal was agreed upon?

Indeed. They lived in luxury relative to any other places, not to mention, homeland in the peninsula, even better than Japan, didn’t they. Not just foods, but shoes, clothes, cigarettes, cosmetics, phonograph. Impossible to have in the homelands. Lucky they were.

Strawman fallacy. Not even going over this again. How does purchasing shoes and cigarettes(at the military encampment they were trapped in) refute the existence of sex slavery?

Woman cloth, shoes, cosmetics in IJA base? Unlikely. Notorious “Camp Town” you mean then? That's after Korean War.

You mean territory that was occupied by the Japanese military.

Don’t make up the story. The document said From here they were distributed to various parts of Burma, usually to fair sized towns near Japanese Army camps.and in the towns they were allowed to go shopping Making up your own story is even worse than your favorite strawman fallacy. If 10times of reading are still not enough, read it 11times or more.

Territory that was occupied by the brutal Japanese military who restricted movement of the locals and comfort women. Do I have to repeat this? The document even states that the Japanese army refused to let these women leave. Even some of the women who paid off all of their debts couldn't leave. So much for your claim that they had freedom of movement.

""In the latter part of 1943 the Army issued orders that certain girls who had paid their debt could return home.""

Making up your own story is even worse than your favorite strawman fallacy. If 10times of reading are still not enough, read it 11times or more.

You clearly have no idea what a strawman fallacy is, if thats your definition. A strawman fallacy = "Some of the sex slaves bought clothes and cigarettes, therefore they wern't slaves". Another strawman fallacy = "Survivors of the 2011 Tsunami watched cartoons, I guess that means the Tsunami never happened".

Mentioning that the comfort women could purchase certain commodities(at over inflated prices) at the military encampment they couldn't leave, does not refute the existence of sex slaves. Your argument would be laughed out of court. Mentioning something entirely irrelevant in order to refute something only makes your argument weaker than it already is.

Those survivors enjoyed shopping, smoking cigarettes, making up with new cosmetics, happy picnic or social dining in the middle of bomb blasts, under radioactive shower, or under attack of Tsunami? Or Days passed after terrifying phenomenon, they realized they could survive but they lost their houses, clothes, everything, not to mention foods to live for tomorrow, but still somehow could afford near-luxury life compared to other places, so they amused themselves, enjoying shopping, smoking cigarettes, making up with new cosmetics, listening to music, happy picnic, sports events, social dining? What on earth is this hilarious example of your so-called strawman fallacy ?

This is just another repeat of what you already wrote. Since you clearly have no idea what a strawman fallacy is, here are some links. Maybe after reading it, you'll stop using such weak "arguments".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

I tell you again making up your own stories is even worse than strawman fallacy. The fact that the army issued such older in 5months (after they landed on Burma, which even sooner than said-contractual period of 6months to 1year), does not necessarily mean that the army didn’t even allow them to leave (even girls who paid off their debt) nor that the army confined them , nor that the army forced them into sex slavery. Where on earth does the document state Only a select few who paid could?

Re-read the document then. The document states:

""In the latter part of 1943 the Army issued orders that CERTAIN girls who had paid their debt could return home.""

The army controlled who could leave and who couldn't. To make matters worse, many women who managed to pay off their debts still couldn't leave. You also mentioned that the women who returned their advanced pay could leave whenever they wanted to. Where was this stated in the document? I can't find it. Did you make it up?

Prostitution regulatory rule enacted in1900 ministerial ordinance no.22 I told you twice or 3rd times already. Obviously both Alex Yorichi and yourself did not know nor even care.

Thats not a part of the document nor was it referenced at all within it. Nor is there any indication that it was enforced. Where was it stated that these women could leave whenever they wanted? And why did the housemasters recruit them via deception if they could just leave whenever they wanted?

Pregnant women living in master’s mansion is the same as marriage? They married to white masters? Falling in love with them? What was the title of Hollywood movie you are referring to?

Many of those pregnant slaves lived in luxury. According to your reasoning (strawman fallacy), that means those pregnant slaves wern't slaves at all. You see how weak such an argument is? Yet this is the only argument you seem to be able to make(and repeat for the 15th time)..

You just ain’t getting it. Debt bondage. Right? How come they didn’t try to pay off their debt asap to release themselves from the bondage then, rather than dissipating on luxury items like cigarettes, cosmetics. Debt servant Right? How come they didn’t choose the quicker way which would enable them to reject the jobs all together then? Did they still want to make up for looking more attractive to their bitter enemies? Business-minded weren’t they. Inbefore ”Even African American slaves made their faces up with cosmetics, which doesn’t refute Pacific Slaves Trade”

This is the 6th time in just one post that you used the same tired old strawman fallacy. Purchasing items does not refute the existence of sex slaves. You also have no idea why or whether all of these women purchase those items or if it was a small minority. Perhaps some of the women who purchased those items were the ones who already paid off their debts(as the document states) yet couldn't leave. Doesn't really matter though since its all irrelevent to this discussion.

It would be like me claiming that ALL OF THE VICTIMS of the 2011 Tsunami didn't suffer economically, because one of the victims bought video games afterwards. Thats another example of a strawman btw.

What kind of poor answer is this? I ask again, does this open letter anywhere refer to any evidence found in No49 of sex slaves ? Your often resorting to other links like this, proves that you yourself are not refuting me at all. Try harder.

I answered your question and the consensus amongst mainstream, unbiased, western and even Japanese historians is that the comfort women were indeed sex slaves. Nowhere in the document is it stated that these women could leave whenever they wanted (the exact opposite is stated). The trip to Burma alone added to their debt so they couldn't just turn in their advanced payment as soon as they landed. They were in debt as soon as they set foot on land. The only way they could pay off their debt and return home was via forced prostitution. Even then, the army wouldn't allow women who managed to pay off this unfairly accumulated debt from leaving.

Do you know what this is? Its called sex slavery according to pretty much every single dictionary and encyclopedia definition in existence.

The document also states that they lived in near-luxury. This is the 4th-5th time I'm telling you this.

"""They lived in near-luxury in Burma in comparison to other places. This was especially true of their second year in Burma. They lived well because their food and material was not heavily rationed and they had plenty of money with which to purchase desired articles. They were able to buy cloth, shoes, cigarettes, and cosmetics to supplement the many gifts given to them by soldiers who had received "comfort bags" from home. While in Burma they amused themselves by participating in sports events with both officers and men, and attended picnics, entertainments, and social dinners. They had a phonograph and in the towns they were allowed to go shopping

Don’t you see it? Your quote is more than offset and invalidated by this quote""".

How many times do I have to tell you to stop using strawman fallacies? You're not refuting the existence of sex slaves. The document also states that they lived in near-luxury relative to other places. He was comparing how awful the situation was in other occupied areas. They purchased items within the occupied military base they were in. They were still prisoners. Strawman isn't a refutation, its a pointless detraction. Heres an example of a strawman fallacy:

"Some of the survivors of the Hiroshima atomic bomb and the 2011 Tsunami live in "near-luxury". I guess that means no tragedy occurred that day at Hiroshima/Tohoku".

They arrived at Kyoei (aka Maruyama Club) in January 1943. The army issued that order in June 1943. Just 5month later. The contract they signed bound them to Army regulations and to war for the "house master " for a period of from six months to a year depending on the family debt for which they were advanced The fact the army issued such order doesn’t necessarily suggest that the army confined them, forced them into sex slavery. On the other hand, it could suggest that IJA was not involved in each private contractual process or contractual obligations at all, until the order issued in 1943 June.

The women were deceived by being promised nursing jobs. Why do you refuse to address this?

""The nature of this "service" was not specified but it was assumed to be work connected with visiting the wounded in hospitals, rolling bandages, and generally making the soldiers happy. The inducement used by these agents was plenty of money, an opportunity to pay off the family debts, easy work, and the prospect of a new life in a new land, Singapore. On the basis of these false representations many girls enlisted for overseas duty and were rewarded with an advance of a few hundred yen.""

Furthermore, you're dead wrong about these women being able to leave whenever they wanted to.

""In the latter part of 1943 the Army issued orders that certain girls who had paid their debt could return home.""

The army wouldn't even allow certain girls who successfully paid off all their debts to leave. Only a select few who paid could. By the way, you said that the girls were allowed to leave if they turned in their advanced payment (completely wrong). Where in the document was this stated? I've read the document at least ten times and now and nowhere is it stated that this was the case.

A forced analogy. Pregnant women living in master’s mansion is the same as marriage?

According to you, the slave lives in luxury, therefore isn't a slave. Funny how your argument works against you huh?

The document states They not Some(not all) Do not twist his statement in your favor. You keep asking how this and that (each objective facts I pointed out) refute the existence of sex slaves. Your argument is entirely based on your own preconceived assertion that they were all sex slaves because you preconceive they were all deceived, unaware, unwillingly forced. You might want to question how could Alex Yorichi refer to as much as 800 women who landed on Burma with each different backgrounds, just by interrogating 20 girls.

Don't try to wrap this on me. You're the one making the claim that since these girls received gifts from soldiers and could purchase overcharged items(at the military base they were trapped in), that this somehow invalidates their existence. So tell me, how exactly does purchasing a cigarette somehow invalidate the existence of sex slavery when the document itself states that these women were recruited via dishonesty, placed in debt bondage, forced to sexually serve soldiers with no option of refusal, and not allowed to leave (even after paying off all of their debt)?

So is your self-righteous assertion.

Apparently, dictionary and encyclopedia definitions are self righteous.

Authoritarianism. It’s not necessary when one thinks of No49 report. You didn’t answer my question: Did they refer to No49 report in open letter in specific?

What kind of question is this? Considering the shear number of historians involved, the amount of research conducted, and the fact that this document is relatively well known; its very very very likely that the report was used.

They could amuse themselves, enjoyed all those events even with the presence of officers and men, couldn’t they? That’s more convincing. The girls were not just proposed to but actually got married and that’s more than just a single case. See caps

Some of the girls attended picnics and were proposed to by horny soldiers. How exactly does this refute the existence of sex slaves? Why do you keep using strawman fallacies? Roman gladiators were also showered with gifts by certain admirers.

The objective facts that they got paid well as much as able to purchase luxury items, that they amused themselves in miscellaneous events even with presence of their detestable vices, that girls might be willing to care for all guests unless congestion was such great, that not just one girl but some girls actually married to those bitter enemies… absolutely have everything to do with fundamental question: Were they really forced to take the jobs? Was it really against their will, despite that some of them might have been recruited by false/obscure presentations? Sure, they have everything to do with your narratives that they were sex slaves

The document states that the women were poorly paid and poorly treated by their housemasters who overcharged them on basic necessities. This is the 3rd-4th time i'm telling you this. The document states:

""She turned over seven hundred and fifty to the "master". Many "masters" made life very difficult for the girls by charging them high prices for food and other articles.""

They were forced into sex slavery. They were in bond slavery. They couldn't leave without paying off their (unfairly accrued) debt. The document states:

""In the latter part of 1943 the Army issued orders that certain girls who had paid their debt could return home. Some of the girls were thus allowed to return to Korea.""

The army wouldn't allow these women to leave at will = slavery. They were forced into sex slavery in order to pay off this debt. So why were these women in Burma in the first place?

""The nature of this "service" was not specified but it was assumed to be work connected with visiting the wounded in hospitals, rolling bandages, and generally making the soldiers happy. The inducement used by these agents was plenty of money, an opportunity to pay off the family debts, easy work, and the prospect of a new life in a new land, Singapore. On the basis of these false representations many girls enlisted for overseas duty and were rewarded with an advance of a few hundred yen.""

The document acknowledges that these women were tricked into this debt by dishonest recruitment tactics. Once they reached Burma, they wern't allowed to leave until they paid off this debt. They couldn't choose what job they wanted to do, nor could they refuse. They became sex slaves?

Telling me that some of the girls married soldiers is a terrible strawman fallacy. It in no way refutes the existence of sex slaves. Some African Slaves got pregnant and lived in mansions owned by their wealthy white landlord masters. Does this invalidated the Atlantic slave trade? Historians argue with events rather than strawmans.

Of course, they had to eat. But even after paying for food, they could afford to purchase cloth, shoes, luxury items like cigarettes, and cosmetics, even phonograph. Could it be that masters just made their luxury life bit difficult?

Yet another strawman fallacy. Some(not all) of the women could purchase luxury items. How exactly does this invalidate the existence of sex slaves? Still doesn't change the fact that these women were tricked, taken away from home, placed in debt bondage, forced to serve as prostitutes, and couldn't leave until after they paid off their debt.

I suggest you not to predicate like that, unless you were there as Korean caretaker who witnessed their lives 70years ago.

Follow your own advice. Its funny how you denialists refuse to accept testimony from actual witnesses(the comfort women themselves) as well as this document yet have the gall to say what you just did.

They must have had autonomy to decide whether or not to buy cloth, shoes, luxury items like cigarettes, and cosmetics, even phonograph, or to save as much as possible. See They lived well because their food and material was not heavily rationed and they had plenty of money with which to purchase desired articles. How on earth could anyone assert how much of money were or weren’t left with them in the end. Do you happen to know famous former comfort women文 玉珠（ムン・オクジュ、문옥주）

Your strawman fallacies are getting really tiresome. Being able to purchase clothes doesn't change the fact that they were in debt bondage, the army wouldn't allow them to leave, that they were forced to sexually serve soldiers, and that they had no control over their occupation.

Those 464 scholars have their own research works with all the primary sources scrutinized themselves? or just relying on a handful pioneers to sign on supporting letters? Regardless, does this open letter specifically refer to No49 report or not?

Those 464 scholars come from all over the world and have read varying sources(primary and secondary). They represent the worlds premier academics, historians, and journalists. They certainlly know more about this issue then you or I do. They've all come in support of the comfort women.

That’s the whole point I have spoken about. Go read up from the beginning of our dialogue. Alex Yorichi got impressions A "comfort girl" is nothing more than a prostitute or "professional camp follower" He was an American soldier of enemy country and was in the position who could have predicated “IJA’s sex slavery” to be reported if that was the case. He had every reasons to do so really, but he didn’t.

I already refuted this. Heres what Alex Yorichi says right after he mentions "professional camp follower"

""The nature of this "service" was not specified but it was assumed to be work connected with visiting the wounded in hospitals, rolling bandages, and generally making the soldiers happy. The inducement used by these agents was plenty of money, an opportunity to pay off the family debts, easy work, and the prospect of a new life in a new land, Singapore. On the basis of these false representations many girls enlisted for overseas duty and were rewarded with an advance of a few hundred yen.""

Funny how you completely leave out the fraudulent recruitment practices, debt bondage, and forced prostitution mentioned in the document.

And the girls who thought American soldiers more emotional ( means more gentle and sensible, maybe) didn’t say anything about being forced to work against their wills , sexually abused, or any other similar expressions.

This is yet another strawman fallacy.

These women were uneducated (as stated in the document) and the majority of them couldn't speak fluent Japanese or English. Most of them couldn't communicate with Alex Yorichi. But thats besides the point, these women have spoken up about being sexually abused. Why do you think this issue lingers today? My goodness.

Add that none of those girls informed him of harm, i.e, they got forced against their free will, threatened, beaten up, and hence had no other choices but simply obeyed under violence.will you?

This is another strawmann fallacy. Alex Yorichi never asked them such a question so obviously which is why its not mentioned.

The document does however state that they were tricked with false job opportunities, that they were placed in debt slavery, forced to serve as sex slaves, and that they couldn't just leave. A textbook definition of what being a sex slave is.

Give me any links which specify “amusing themselves” by participating in sports events with both officers and men, and attended picnics, entertainments, and social dinners as their jobs, or, they were forced to amuse themselves, will you?

Did you ignore the part where it states that they attended those services with officers (it was there job)? Not that it matters since attending picnics does not invalidate the existence of sex slaves.

They were objective facts reported in the document. It is only your narratives that those facts contribute nothing to. Do not cherry pick.

You just used a strawman fallacy. What does that have to do with anything? It doesn't refute anything I wrote. Mentioning that the girls were proposed to or that they attended sports events does not refute the existence of sex slaves. Quit trying to detract this debate.

In case you get lost, 750yen/month was after they repaid debt and interest.

Did I say this wasn't the case? Maybe you should re-read my post. Heres what the document says (which you have yet to address):

""She turned over seven hundred and fifty to the "master". Many "masters" made life very difficult for the girls by charging them high prices for food and other articles.""

Not necessarily. I pointed out, even after monthly repayments, they got left with 750yen which was extraordinary income and the girls could afford purchase luxury items. Not just paid, but very well paid. Probably one of English definition like this drops off the discussion. Bond Servant =a person bound to service without wages. Dictionary.com

I pointed out that the document states that the house masters frequently overcharged them on food and other basic necessities, which meant very little of the 750 yen they received actually went to them (read the above quote that I bolded). Heres a definition of bonded labour:

======

Bonded labour is the most widespread – yet the least known - form of slavery in the world. A person becomes a bonded labourer when their labour is demanded as a means of repayment for a loan. The person is then tricked or trapped into working for very little or no pay. The value of their work becomes invariably greater than the original sum of money borrowed. Often the debts are passed onto the next generations.

Many bonded labourers are forced to work to repay debts their employer says they owe, and they are not allowed to work for anyone else. Violence and threats can be used to coerce them to stay, and in some cases they are kept under surveillance – sometimes under lock and key.

http://www.antislavery.org/english/slavery_today/bonded_labour/

=====

Heres what debt bondage is:

Debt bondage (also known as debt slavery or bonded labor) is a person's pledge of their labor or services as security for the repayment for a debt or other obligation. The services required to repay the debt may be undefined, and the services' duration may be undefined. Debt bondage can be passed on from generation to generation.

Debt bondage has been described by the United Nations as a form of "modern day slavery" and the Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery seeks to abolish the practice.[1][2][3] Most countries are parties to the Convention, but the practice is still prevalent in South Asia.[1] Debt bondage in India was legally abolished in 1976 but remains prevalent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt_bondage

=====

Perhaps you misread what I wrote? I meant every single sentences are valid observations to infer how their lives were like whereas you cherry-pick only the parts which fit to your narratives. However, if the report contains contradictions to the extent it looks unreliable as whole, one would come to conclusion as it is.

Try as you might, you cannot argue with facts. Heres a dictionary definition of what it means to be a sex slave:

http://www.yourdictionary.com/sex-slave

A person, especially a woman or girl, who is confined and is raped, sexually abused, or forced to work as a prostitute. Also called sexual slave.

The 1949 document states that the women were tricked into sex slavery (promises of high paying job), confined(not allowed to leave Burma), placed in debt bondage, and forced to work as prostitutes(aka sex slavery). They couldn't refuse their job. How is this not slavery? Answer my question. Tell me how this isn't sex slavery when it fits the dictionary definition.

Do you think I don’t know that? So what? What would be the big deals of 464 signatures. After all, they all relies on works of a handful of scholars like Yoshimi Yoshiaki

You just used another strawman argument to dismiss decades of academic research done by historians from around the world. What makes you think you understand history better than unbiased, 3rd party, western and Japanese historians? Like I said earlier, denialists are the modern equivalent of flat earthers.

It’s funny though, this open letter calls them “Comfort Women”. Nowhere does it call them “Sex Slave”. By the way, does this open letter tell us how NO49 report is to be interpreted?

It pretty much means the same thing in this context.

The fact you often quote some links to other sources proves that the report by itself cannot let both deniers and affirmers predicate one way or the other.

Did you completely ignore all the quotes from the 1944 document I provided? The fact that you resort to strawman arguments(the comfort women went to sporting events) in order to dismiss the existence of sex slavery tells me everything I need to know about how strong your argument is.

Japan has zero leverage or right to make such demands. If you're truly sorry, then you won't make such obnoxious demands.

It’s not you but the girls who were to decide, short term or long term, whatsoever. The girls could have quit but the debt remains. Prostitution regulatory Rules enforced in 1900. If they didn’t like the job, they could have returned or asked their parent to return the upfront money.

Read the document. It says they could refuse certain soldiers. Nowhere in the document is it implied that they could refuse the job altogether. They were indebted slaves, they couldn't just pack up and leave.

Where exactly in the document, it says “that was their “job””, “they had to do escort services as well”. Title of paragraphs, and number of row. Please.

Thats because it was their job. They provided sexual and escort services for the soldiers. Go read up on the comfort women system.

It is one of objective facts reported in the document to infer how their lives were like and should not be dismissed such easily although one should not assert arbitrarily, like you often do, by this sentence only.

No, it was a strawman attempt by you. Mentioning that the girls were proposed to by certain soldiers, or that they attended sporting events contributes nothing to this discussion. Nor does it somehow refute the fact that these women were sex slaves.

750yen/per month was actually extraordinary good income those days.

Funny how you conveniently left out the passage after this:

""She turned over seven hundred and fifty to the "master". Many "masters" made life very difficult for the girls by charging them high prices for food and other articles.""

If your argument is to claim that these women were paid and therefore not slaves, then you're completely ignorant of what a slave is. African slaves could buy themselves out of American slavery by working in plantations for several years. Roman gladiators could buy themselves out of slavery by winning several victories. Go read up what debt bondage and slavery is because you clearly have no idea what they mean.

As I have said from the beginning, it’s not my interest at all how “sex slave” is being defined in English dictionary. Hence I have never tried to refute nor argue the definition itself. I am just pointing out the report 49 itself is not good enough to assert sex slavery conditions as defined by English dictionary.

In what world is being lied to, shipped off to a foreign country, not being allowed to leave, thrown into debt bondage, and then forced to work as sex slaves; not a form of slavery? I can guarantee you the Japanese government would be up in arms if some foreign country promised thousands of Japanese women a "high paying office job" in Burma. When these Japanese women arrive in Burma, they are slapped with a huge amount of debt and not allowed to leave until they pay off their debts by sexually satisfying the locals.

No parts of valid observations which compose this short report are irrelevant to have objective views. You are relying too much on famous scholar’s opinions. Me, I would not challenge those scholars but would not blindly buy their opinions either.

This is hilarious. This debate isn't going in your favor so now you claim the document is unreliable. Ironically, you would much rather trust a right wing Japanese source written decades after the event.

Alex Yorichi got impressions A "comfort girl" is nothing more than a prostitute or "professional camp follower" He was an American soldier of enemy country and was in the position who could have asserted “IJA’s sex slavery” to be reported if that was the cases. He had every reasons to do so really but he didn’t. And the girls who thought American soldiers more emotional ( means more gentle and sensible, maybe) didn’t say anything about being forced to work against their wills , sexually abused, or any other similar expressions.

This is funny because it was your fellow right wing denialist Ossan who brought this document up. In fact, this document is frequently used by denialists to claim that the US government thought these women were nothing more then prostitutes (which was totally dishonest of him). I only pointed out what was actually in the document.

Heres a statement from 464 actual academics from all over the world; mostly westerners(you cannot accuse them of being biased) who've signed their names in support for acknowledging the existence of comfort women. In fact, some of the historians who've signed their names are Japanese.

http://www.japanfocus.org/-Asia-Pacific%20Journal-Feature/4828/article.html

I normally don't appeal to authority but in this case, the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of one side. The question is, do you honestly believe you're right and all of these historians are somehow wrong? Denying something thats established fact by 99.9% of legitimate historians makes you denialists the modern equivalent of flat earthers. We have ivy league professors with decades of research on one side, and Tony Marano on the other side.

Why can't this country just apologize, shut up, and compensate these women with no ulterior motives and demands? Its not even that much money. Oh thats right, its because Japans face saving culture and lack of accountability. Its always someone elses fault or a "misunderstanding".

You already have people in the comment section accusing these women of being gold diggers.

-They were in debt bondage. They could refuse a customer but that would only mean not being able to pay off their debts and not being allowed to leave (no freedom of movement). In other words, refusing all customers wasn't really an option in the long term.

-They attended sporting events and picnics with officers because that was their "job". They had to do escort services as well. Read the document. And how exactly does this disprove the existence of sex slaves?

-Yet another strawman fallacy. Some of the girls were proposed to by horny soldiers, how exactly does that disprove the existence of sex slaves?

-The girls complained about their schedules because they were overworked. I find it disgusting that you interpret the passage as meaning the girls were complaining because they were so eager to service the soldiers.

-The women were lied to by being promised high paying nursing jobs. They were then shipped off to Burma with no freedom of movement. When the women found out the nature of their job (sex slavery), they wern't allowed to refuse their job and leave because they had already accumulated overcharged debt for their journey. They were then forced to work as sex slaves until they could pay off this unfairly accumulated debt. How is this not slavery? Not once have you addressed this fact directly. Heres what the document states:

The "house master" received fifty to sixty per cent of the girls' gross earnings depending on how much of a debt each girl had incurred when she signed her contract. This meant that in an average month a girl would gross about fifteen hundred yen. She turned over seven hundred and fifty to the "master". Many "masters" made life very difficult for the girls by charging them high prices for food and other articles.

-The document states that only a "few" were actual prostitutes. The vast majority were uneducated girls who were tricked into sex slavery.

The majority of the girls were ignorant and uneducated, although a few had been connected with "oldest profession on earth" before.

The nature of this "service" was not specified but it was assumed to be work connected with visiting the wounded in hospitals, rolling bandages, and generally making the soldiers happy. The inducement used by these agents was plenty of money, an opportunity to pay off the family debts, easy work, and the prospect of a new life in a new land, Singapore. On the basis of these false representations many girls enlisted for overseas duty and were rewarded with an advance of a few hundred yen.

Dishonest recruitment tactics on uneducated girls which put them in debt bondage and sex slavery. I've given you several dictionary and encylopedia defintions of what a sex slave is. You've ignored them all (because you can't refute them) and instead brought up irrelevant strawman statements (marriage proposals, sporting events, etc). The women were sex slaves, how anyone can interpret the document in any other way is beyond me. Heres the US governments current stance on the comfort women issue:

House resolution 121

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_House_Resolution_121

US secretary of state on comfort women

http://www.japantoday.com/category/politics/view/clinton-says-comfort-women-should-be-referred-to-as-enforced-sex-slaves

POTUS on comfort women

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNKkYNLs2ZE

You just shot yourself in the foot. You do realize that by mentioning "army regulations and to war" you're admitting perhaps the biggest issue the Japanese government tries to deny(that the government and army bears no responsibility).

And no, the comfort women couldn't just quit. Read the report. What part of debt bondage do you not understand? They were indebted and forced to work the moment they landed on Burma. They had no freedom of movement. They could refuse their customers, never pay off their debt, watch as their debt grows, and never be allowed to see their homeland; or they could pay off their debt by being sex slaves (which they were tricked and forced into). The rest of your post is nothing more than strawman and red herring fallacies. A tiny minority of the slaves married soldiers in order to escape sex slavery and this somehow refutes their existence? Some of them received gifts (lipstick, clothes, dolls, etc) and this somehow refutes the existence of sex slaves? Such examples are not refutations but pointless strawman.

Why do you keep denying English language definitions of what a sex slave is? Every dictionary/encylopedia/human rights terminology I could find on the net agrees these women were sex slaves.

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

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sex-slave

noun a person who is forced into prostitution and held against their will

http://www.yourdictionary.com/sex-slave

A person, especially a woman or girl, who is confined and is raped, sexually abused, or forced to work as a prostitute. Also called sexual slave.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_slavery

Sexual slavery is particular form of enslavement which includes limitations on one's autonomy, freedom of movement and power to decide matters relating to one's sexual activity.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Sexual+slavery

A person, especially a woman or girl, who is confined and is raped, sexually abused, or forced to work as a prostitute. Also called sexual slave.

http://notabandoned.org/an-introduction-to-sex-slavery-worldwide/

Process of coercing labor or other services from a captive individual, through any means, including exploitation of bodies or body parts;”[2] so sex slavery is the slavery of people for sexual exploitation.

http://www.soroptimist.org/trafficking/faq.html

Sex trafficking or slavery is the exploitation of women and children, within national or across international borders, for the purposes of forced sex work. Commercial sexual exploitation includes pornography, prostitution and sex trafficking of women and girls, and is characterized by the exploitation of a human being in exchange for goods or money.

https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/human-trafficking/

Human trafficking is the acquisition of people by improper means such as force, fraud or deception, with the aim of exploiting them.

@DieRealityCheck

Heres what the document says:

Deceitful recruiting

Early in May of 1942 Japanese agents arrived in Korea for the purpose of enlisting Korean girls for "comfort service" in newly conquered Japanese territories in Southeast Asia. The nature of this "service" was not specified but it was assumed to be work connected with visiting the wounded in hospitals, rolling bandages, and generally making the soldiers happy. The inducement used by these agents was plenty of money, an opportunity to pay off the family debts, easy work, and the prospect of a new life in a new land, Singapore. On the basis of these false representations many girls enlisted for overseas duty and were rewarded with an advance of a few hundred yen.

Job fraud and debt bondage,

The majority of the girls were ignorant and uneducated, although a few had been connected with "oldest profession on earth" before. The contract they signed bound them to Army regulations and to war for the "house master" for a period of from six months to a year depending on the family debt for which they were advanced.

Bond servant The "house master" received fifty to sixty per cent of the girls' gross earnings depending on how much of a debt each girl had incurred when she signed her contract. This meant that in an average month a girl would gross about fifteen hundred yen. She turned over seven hundred and fifty to the "master". Many "masters" made life very difficult for the girls by charging them high prices for food and other articles. A regular Japanese Army doctor visited the houses once a week and any girl found diseased was given treatment, secluded, and eventually sent to a hospital. This same procedure was carried on within the ranks of the Army itself, but it is interesting to note that a soldier did not lose pay during the period he was confined.

No freedom of movement.

In the latter part of 1943 the Army issued orders that certain girls who had paid their debt could return home. Some of the girls were thus allowed to return to Korea

Forced to work

It was the consensus among the girls that Allied bombings were intense and frightening and because of them they spent most of their last days in foxholes. One or two even carried on work there. The comfort houses were bombed and several of the girls were wounded and killed.

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

So lets get this straight: deceitful recruiting, debt bondage, not being allowed to leave, forced to sexually serve soldiers, etc.

This is EXACTLY WHAT SEX SLAVERY IS. The gall you have to deny this even though its in plain view for everyone to read. Are you going to deny basic English? Here are several different definitions from several different sources.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sex-slave

noun a person who is forced into prostitution and held against their will

http://www.yourdictionary.com/sex-slave

A person, especially a woman or girl, who is confined and is raped, sexually abused, or forced to work as a prostitute. Also called sexual slave.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_slavery

Sexual slavery is particular form of enslavement which includes limitations on one's autonomy, freedom of movement and power to decide matters relating to one's sexual activity.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Sexual+slavery

A person, especially a woman or girl, who is confined and is raped, sexually abused, or forced to work as a prostitute. Also called sexual slave.

===========

Are you going to deny this any further? Its only making you look bad. Every single dictionary, encyclopedia, lawyer, and human rights organization disagrees with you.

@DieRealityCheck

The document states the women were promised high paying nursing jobs. They were then shipped off to Burma and forced to sexually serve dozens of soldiers every day, against their will. The women were slapped with an enormous amount of debt and wern't allowed to leave until they paid it off. There was no freedom of rejection. As soon as they landed on Burma, they had debt. Japanese house masters overcharged these women in order to keep them in debt bondage.

Being tricked into sex slavery, not being allowed to leave, debt bondage, and being forced to "perform" every day against your will. Is this sex slavery or is it not? Since you can't seem to answer such a simple question, I'll answer it for you:

Heres a dictionary definition of what a sex slave is:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sex-slave?s=t

sex slave

noun

a person who is forced into prostitution and held against their will

You're arguing against the English language. Every dictionary and encyclopedia in existence would classify the comfort women as sex slaves. One more thing, saying these women lived in "near-luxury" is a strawman fallacy. Many African American and Roman slaves lived in the mansions/villas/estates that their wealthy landowner masters did. Does that mean they weren't slaves because they also lived in "near luxury"? It still doesn't change the fact that that these women were slaves who were forced to work against their will.

@DieRealityCheck

You did not answer my question. Does the following scenario constitute sex slavery?

-Being promised a high paying nursing job only to end up being forced to sexually serve dozens of soldiers every day.

-Being shipped off to another country and not being allowed to leave under threat of violence and detainment.

-Being slapped with a large amount of fraudulent debt upon arrival and forced to work against your will.

This is what the document asserts. Like I said earlier, according to pretty much every single dictionary, encyclopedia, lawyer, and human rights organization; it constitutes sex slavery. So answer my question with a yes or no.

@DieRealityCheck Let me ask you a question:

If someone promised you a high paying nursing job which you agreed upon. Then you were shipped off to a foreign country. Then the person in charge takes away your passport, slaps you with a gigantic amount of over inflated debt(transport, housing, food, medical bills, etc), then tells you the high paying nursing job was a lie and that you had to sexually serve dozens of soldiers every day. And to make matters worse, you're not allowed to leave until after you've paid off your "debt" under threat of violence and detainment.

Does this constitute sex slavery? Because according to pretty much every single dictionary, encyclopedia, lawyer, and human rights organization; it constitutes sex slavery.

Heres what the document states:

Coercion

Early in May of 1942 Japanese agents arrived in Korea for the purpose of enlisting Korean girls for "comfort service" in newly conquered Japanese territories in Southeast Asia. The nature of this "service" was not specified but it was assumed to be work connected with visiting the wounded in hospitals, rolling bandages, and generally making the soldiers happy. The inducement used by these agents was plenty of money, an opportunity to pay off the family debts, easy work, and the prospect of a new life in a new land, Singapore. On the basis of these false representations many girls enlisted for overseas duty and were rewarded with an advance of a few hundred yen.

Deciet

The majority of the girls were ignorant and uneducated, although a few had been connected with "oldest profession on earth" before. The contract they signed bound them to Army regulations and to war for the "house master" for a period of from six months to a year depending on the family debt for which they were advanced.

Bond servant

The "house master" received fifty to sixty per cent of the girls' gross earnings depending on how much of a debt each girl had incurred when she signed her contract. This meant that in an average month a girl would gross about fifteen hundred yen. She turned over seven hundred and fifty to the "master". Many "masters" made life very difficult for the girls by charging them high prices for food and other articles. A regular Japanese Army doctor visited the houses once a week and any girl found diseased was given treatment, secluded, and eventually sent to a hospital. This same procedure was carried on within the ranks of the Army itself, but it is interesting to note that a soldier did not lose pay during the period he was confined.

Not being allowed to leave.

In the latter part of 1943 the Army issued orders that certain girls who had paid their debt could return home. Some of the girls were thus allowed to return to Korea.

Forced to work till the bitter end

It was the consensus among the girls that Allied bombings were intense and frightening and because of them they spent most of their last days in foxholes. One or two even carried on work there. The comfort houses were bombed and several of the girls were wounded and killed.

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

The document CLEARLY states that the women were coerced/tricked into sex slavery by being promised nursing jobs. They were then shipped off to Burma and incurred massive debts from Japanese housemasters for simple things like transport, food, boarding, weekly medical checkups, etc. The housemasters overcharged these girls and made it nearly impossible for some of them to pay off their debts.

These women were then FORCED to work as sex slaves, otherwise they would never be able to pay off their debt and return home. They couldn't just walk away from their job. Do you know what all of this equates to? It means they were sex slaves. Do you not understand simple English?

@DieRealityCheck

In what world is being forced to work, not being paid/having your earnings taken away, not being allowed to leave, and being a bond servant not slavery? You're the one whos arguing semantics. You're denying the very definition of slavery. A slave is, let me quote again:

noun 1. a person who is the property of and wholly subject to another; a bond servant. 2. a person entirely under the domination of some influence or person:

Typical Japanese double speak. I can't believe you are arguing with an established definition in the English language.

@DieRealityCheck

You are arguing semantics. You are arguing against the English language. In what world is someone whos coerced, forced to work, not allowed to leave, and not paid not a slave? Seriously, do you even read what you write?

And yes, the international community including the UN recognizes that these women were sex slaves. Read this if you want the UNs stance on this issue:

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=48424#.VoSWOBUrIdU

Japans closest ally Taiwan has even criticized Japan a few hours ago:

http://time.com/4164004/taiwan-japan-comfort-women-resolution/

@DieRealityCheck

Its not my interpretation. The literal definition of a slave according to dictionary.com

noun

a person who is the property of and wholly subject to another; a bond servant. a person entirely under the domination of some influence or person:

The "comfort women" were coerced, forced to work, now allowed to leave, under the control of Japanese Housemasters, and were bond servents who could never pay off their debts. Thats what the US documents say.

http://fendnow.org/2015/03/debunking-the-japanese-comfort-women-denier-talking-points/

Do you not understand basic English or are you going to continue to argue over definitions?

Burning Bush

How come woman in other parts of Asia aren't as vocal about this issue?

They are vocal about this issue. Their have been protests all over asia but for some reason. Theres even a Dutch-Australian comfort women.

Jan Ruff O'Herne https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Ruff_O%27Herne

Coerced and tricked into prostitution, having your passport taken away, not being allowed to leave under threat of violence, all earnings taken away by Japanese housemasters = slavery.

Do you even know what slavery means?

@DieRealityCheck

The 1944 US document that Ossan quoted states that the comfort women were sex slaves. They were coerced into their position through trickery and wern't allowed to leave(slavery) due to Japanese housemasters who enslaved them via debt bondage.

This was all stated in the US documents he mentioned.

Lol, the Japanese government finally realized that they couldn't win against overwhelming historical evidence. So much for all the right wing denialists claiming history was on their side huh? The Japanese government has waved the white flag.

Today is a good day, unfortunately I still see certain idiot politicians who will continue to deny their existence.