Japan Marks WWII Surrender

Why are you people still trying to reason with SM? He is the Basso light when anything remotely involving China is being discussed.

 

In the movie? I don't think he shot at civilians at all, in my example, he would be killing civilians purposefully in an effort to force his enemy to give up the fight.

I don't think you should be commenting on the reasoning abilities of anyone. One of us thinks that an action hero rescuing prisoners is the same as bombing civilian targets, and it isn't me.

It is worse by the quantum of exactly one rape.

It isn't a defense of war criminals at all. It is knowing what the term class A war criminal means with regard to the International Military Tribunal for the Far East. It comes from having studied the law of war. The Allies created a new crime that had not been prosecuted before, it was called waging aggressive war, and the crime (which should be obvious by the name) was for waging an unprovoked war. That was the class A war crime. Class B was customary war crimes. In the case of the Japanese, those were largely mistreatment of prisoners. Class C was crimes against humanity, which was the atrocities committed against civilians.

Se above. I don't think you understand what they were convicted of.

I don't think the difference is important to the question of visiting Yasakuni or Arlington. When a head of state is paying respect to the soldiers who have fought and died for his country, I don't think the actions of a very tiny percentage of those soldiers should be the focus.

The topic of the thread was the Japanese PM not visiting Yasakuni. The reason he did not do so and the reason why it was protested in the past is hardly a derailment. Discussion of any of those topics seems well within the realm of acceptable posting. If it really bothers you that much, the report button is on the upper right of this post, allow one of the mods to determine that I have strayed too far beyond the bounds of the thread.

Your interpretation. Much as your interpretation of the Japanese apology is that it is too ambiguous to be an apology. I disagree. The only real way to determine who is write would be to ask the person expressing the sentiment.

So now it doesn't matter that it is not conversational, and instead you want the word apology. This is called moving the goalposts, but I will play along to be nice. What if they used another word like sorry, or remorse, or begged forgiveness? Is apology in some form the only acceptable word, or do other words that can be used to express apologetic sentiments also count?

I'm pretty convinced you are angry at what the Japanese did in WWII, that you have a special sensitivity to it that you don't have to other acts, and that as a result you are not able to look at it objectively. That is perfectly understandable, but I think if you review my posts in this thread, you will find dispassionate reasoning, not goading, outside of a few responses to insults.

 

Since you enjoy your trolling so much, I will play along.

Let's say Rambo kills civilians purposefully to force his enemy to give up the fight, knowing that it would only cause more civilians to die if the fight goes on.

Major Tint kills civilians purposefully for his own devilish greed.

I am sure a 10 years old can see the difference there. I am not sure if you can though.

 

Oh mine. I thought you were just saying the US had done something horrible in the war according to your one man tribunal. NOW, you are saying the Japanese weren't war criminals at all. You are either trolling or incredibly illogical.

 

I think you are having trouble with your reading comprehension. I never said that the Japanese weren't war criminals at all. Please re-read the post and try again.

 

Clearly, when applied too dogmatically, moral relativism allows you to equate no difference between genocide and military action to end genocide because the result is the same: they both kill people.

Makes me question my own avowed moral relativism.

 

To me it's the intention and the aggressor is presumed to have ill intention.
If it means to kill the aggressor along with killing 100 civilians to save other 1000 innocent people based on aggressor's manifested aggression, we gotta do 10 out of 10 times because it is morally justified.

 

Ok maybe ...
Simple question to you, did the Japanese commit war crimes by wagging unprovoked war that brought upon Chinese, Koreans, etc atrocities such as raping their women, killing their children? Did the US commit war crimes by bringing the axises to submission with collateral damages? ( I will give you I have been very critical of the military decisions you mentioned because they were hasitily drawn without enough evidence. But still they were far from being war crimes the Japanese committed for obvious reasons others and I have hashed in this thread)

On another note, you keep broadsiding the debate by saying visiting the shrine is just to pay tribute to "fallen soldiers" while ignoring the relevant context of so doing, i.e. the Japanese revision of their history, enshrining war criminals, etc. I am sure you are aware that many young Japanese thought Pearl Harbor was merely a Hollywood fiction and they were the victims of the war because the Americans punished them for their "liberation efforts" in Asia. Given the Japanese history is replete with stories of Hamlet revenges, don't you think the Japanese political figures visiting shrines sends a message to their people more than just paying tribute to fallen soldiers?

Lastly, one wrong doesn't justify another and thus Arlington is completely irrelevant to this debate, not assuming it is necessarily wrong. Don't you get why people think you are trolling?

 

Yes, under our post WWII understanding of war crimes. In fact, even without the atrocities, waging unprovoked war is a war crime. Committing the atrocities is also a war crime regardless of whether or not the person committing them was waging a war of aggression. Two separate war crimes.

No, they committed war crimes by intentionally targeting civilians. This is different than collateral damage. Collateral damage is when you are trying to bomb a military target and civilians die. When the civilians themselves are the target, they are not collateral damage. This is the difference between the attacks by Palestinian terrorists and the attacks by the IDF.

The message they are sending to their people has nothing to do with the revisionist history (which is far less widespread than you think). The purpose of the shrine itself and the purpose of visiting the shrine are to pay tribute to fallen soldiers. It is no more meant to send a message that the actions of war criminals are okay than the President of the United States is trying to send a message the firebombing Dresden was okay when he visits Arlington. It is no more meant to send a message condoning the atrocities committed in WWII than Presidents Day is meant to send a message condoning slavery, or Columbus Day/Thanksgiving are meant to send a message condoning the genocide of the indigenous tribes of America. The incidences of revisionist history should be addressed, but the shrine visitation is a separate issue to me.

I agree with your premise but disagree with the conclusion you are drawing from it. Since I am not trying to justify any wrong, it is your statement that is irrelevant.

 

I am sorry I am not following ...
Which one is your position ?
A. You approve visit to Arlington which you insist buries war criminals, and by the same logic you approve visiting Yasukuni.
or
B. You don't approve Arlington, but somehow approve Yasukuni.

Either way, I have a problem with (although A is less troubling). Seems to me you are morally relative without a baseline principle, i.e. can't tell right and wrong. That''s the only explanation.

 

A. I don't think a head of state should be prevented from honoring the fallen soldiers of his country because a very tiny minority of them have committed war crimes. That should in no way excuse the actions of the war criminals, but there is a clear intent behind the actions of the head of state, and it has nothing to do with war criminals.

For future reference, I would ask that you please not use the quote function and then edit to paraphrase me or add your own thoughts within the quote text. It is fine to cut things out for length without changing the meaning (especially with the use of ellipses), but you're passing off your words as my words.

 

Since you enjoy your trolling so much, I will play along.

Let's say Rambo kills civilians purposefully to force his enemy to give up the fight, knowing that it would only cause more civilians to die if the fight goes on.

Major Tint kills civilians purposefully for his own devilish greed.

I am sure a 10 years old can see the difference there. I am not sure if you can though.

 

You and I both know there would be no intentional crimes punishable if the accused's manifested subjective intent were to be believed. Hitler too told the British and French that Germany's military buildup had nothing to do with them in the 30s. Intent has to be assessed from the totality of the circumstance. In generalized form, one could even characterize visits to Yasukuni as going to cemetery commemorating the deceased. But such characterization would be dishonest and wrong, just like your characterization, for ignoring the circumstance of the visits. Again, facts are abundant that the visits in question were not merely, as you put it, paying tribute to fallen soldiers. Japanese post-war cabinets were hastily comprised of WWII participants and Japan has since been resistant to dissociate herself with the war. The action of the Japanese political figures visiting Yasukuni which enshrines convicted war criminals, taken together with their other actions related to the history of WWII, speaks louder than their disclaimers. It is an international nuisance to the Chinese, Korean, Philipino, Singaporeans and others suffered Japanese WWII brutality , to say the least, and therefore subject to international criticism. Let's leave Arlington out of it.

I apologize for putting words in your mouth, though.

 

Yes they are different. No, that does not mean Rambo is not a war criminal. If Joe killed your father so that he could rape your mother, and John killed your mother so he could steal her purse, Joe would be worse (by one rape less one robbery), but both would be murderers.

The actions of Hitler were to launch an invasion of France and the Blitz against England. The actions of the Japanese political figures visiting Yasukuni were to issue official apologies to China et al. That would seem to indicate that Germany was lying about the reason for their military build up and Japan was truthful when they said they were visiting Yasukuni to honor their fallen soldiers. I can understand why you want to leave Arlington out of it though, since it undercuts the argument against visiting Yasukuni.

Thanks.

 

Whether Arlington is right or wrong simply has nothing to do with the debate OP started. I don't see how Arlington could justify Yasukuni and Japanese WWII politics, different context, apples and oranges.

Just to put things in perspective, there isn't an UN resolution or international treaty prohibiting Japanese political leaders from visiting the Shrine. As I said, the visits were international nuisances for the most part, and unless Japan's neighbors buy into the tributing theory, the complaints following every visits would not stop and it is not a good thing for Japan either.

Ok, let's leave at this.

 

Or just plain stupid

 

I thought you were arguing Rambo and Major Tint are war criminals at the same degree. Backpedaling now?

In your example, if Joe killed your father so that he could rape your mother, and John killed your mother so he could steal her purse, Joe would be worse (by one rape less one robbery), both would be murderers.

However, I can definitely understand if you are more angry with people worshipping Joe than paying tribute to John. Why? Because the cruelty Joe has committed to your family is more severe than that by John.

Still, your example is bad. The intention of both Joe and John are sinful. But it is not true in Rambo and Major Tint's case. Even though the goal of Major Tint to commit the crime is sinful too, the mission of Rambo is honorable. Once again, I am not hopeful that you can see the difference there.

Using Arlington to rationalize the Japanese shrine visiting is not going to work. Try something else.



You are the one who used Arlington to rationalize the Japanese shrine visiting. So if those soldiers in question buried at the two places committed crimes at different degree

 

Agreed, we seem to be going in circles.

No. That is the same thing I have been saying all along.

Yes, which I think is pretty much verbatim what I posted.

Why would anyone worship Joe or pay tribute to John. It would be more like if Joe was a decorated cop and John was a decorated fireman and you were more angry at people that gave to cop charities than fireman charities because of it. It wouldn't make sense to be angry at people paying tribute to cops or firemen because a tiny minority (in this example one of each) did bad things to your family. Joe and John's respective actions against your family have nothing to do with the charities or why donations are being made.

Fine, say John killed your mother to stop Joe from raping her, and also so you would get the life insurance money and it would help make sure Joe goes to prison. He therefor killed your mother, but did it for "good" reasons. It doesn't change the fact that Joe is still a murderer.

There is no need to rationalize. Arlington is being used to point out that there is no need to rationalize it. I don't know what your last sentence means though.

 

If either one of you, any of you seriously think that using Rambo as a tool to argue your case makes any sort of sense, and will be taken seriously by "the world at large," then your arguments are bankrupt before you've begun. Why not give us all a break (and this isn't pointed just at you) and attempt to be at least semi-serious when discussing the topic. Thanks in advance.