Don't be mad, I understand China couldn't do anything against Japan because its your neighbor and can fight back compare to other countries you picked on. We learned from our mistakes never to let our enemy think we can't fight back like 9/11 or Pearl Harbor. You should know that by now.
Japanese activists land on the Senkakus amid Chinese protests and threats
- Thread starter anon45
- Start date
Don't be mad, I understand China couldn't do anything against Japan because its your neighbor and can fight back compare to other countries you picked on. We learned from our mistakes never to let our enemy think we can't fight back like 9/11 or Pearl Harbor. You should know that by now.
WuMaoCleverbot
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- May 14, 2012
- Messages
- 470
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Found this:
As recently as 1953, according to research done by Ampotan, the PRC considered the Senkaku Islands to be Japanese territory, as they were claimed in 1895 through the legal caveat of terra nullius. That the PRC only claims them now is, in fact, due to territorial and resource ambition. To sum up Ampotan's findings in his excellently sourced, cited and researched article:
on the history of the islands:
"
The first recorded mention of the islets was in 1534 in Chen Kan’s Records of the Imperial Mission to Ryukyu. Chen, an envoy of the Ming Dynasty emperor to the Ryukyus, described his trip from China to Naha, as well as the customs of the native Okinawans. In his and several other accounts over the next two centuries, the islets were mentioned merely as geographic landmarks. The Chinese never indicated they considered them their territory, or anything more than specks in the ocean.
The first Japanese mention is in the Chuzan Seikan (Mirror of Chuzan), i.e., records of the Ryukyu Dynasty, which dates from 1650. As in the Chinese records, there is no indication they were considered anyone’s territory.
Fukuoka native Koga Tatsuhiro was making a living in Naha, Okinawa, catching and exporting finfish and shellfish when he discovered in 1884 that the islets were the habitat of the rare short-tailed albatross. He started collecting albatross feathers for sale in addition conducting to his fishing business. Ten years later, he applied to the government of Okinawa Prefecture to lease the islands. They turned him down because they weren’t sure who the islands belonged to. Koga then applied to the interior and agriculture ministries in Tokyo, and they turned him down for the same reason.
That did bring the islets to the attention of the Japanese government, however, and Koga’s persistence paid off. The Japanese claimed the islands under the legal principle of terra nullius—any nation can claim as its own, territory that is unclaimed by any other nation—and it became part of Japan. The Senkakus were uninhabited and unclaimed—indeed, they had never been administered at any time by the Chinese government, and there is no record of any Chinese ever living or working there.
The Chinese later charged the Japanese swiped the islets at the same time they wound up with the booty of Taiwan and the Penghu Islands at the end of the 1894-1895 Sino-Japanese War."
furthermore, according to Ampotan's research, the islands fell under US control after the end of WWII, and were returned to Japan with the return of Okinawa in 1971.
a timeline after the war goes like this with regards to PRC claims (and lack thereof) after WWII:
8 January 1953: Renmin Ribao (People’s Daily) published an article titled “The Ryukyu Islanders’ Struggle against American Occupation”　(i.e., Okinawa). The article mentioned the Senkakus, used that name, and stated they were part of the Ryukyus. Here’s a post from Michael Turton’s fine blog, The View from Taiwan, with more more detail on the article.
November 1958: A Beijing company published a map of the world showing the Senkakus as Japanese territory and using the Japanese name.
October 1965: The Research Institute for Taiwan’s Ministry of National Defense published a series of world maps. It showed the islets as part of Japanese territory and used the Japanese name Senkakus. Here is a color reproduction of the map itself on a Taiwanese website. The poster worries about how the map would affect the Taiwanese claim. Scroll down to see the magical mystery change on the map for the 1972 edition.
6 October 1968: The Taiwanese newspaper Lianhebao (United Daily News) published an article explaining that Taiwanese fishermen were prohibited from fishing in the Senkakus. They used the Japanese name.
12 October – 29 November 1968: Maritime specialists from Taiwan and South Korea conducted sea floor surveys of the East China Sea with the cooperation of the Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East (ECAFE), the regional arm of the United Nations Secretariat for the Asian and Pacific region. The report stated there was a possibility of large quantities of oil and natural gas under the seabed. It was later confirmed that there are at least 92 million bbl of oil available, with estimates of up to 100 billion bbl of oil, roughly equivalent to the 112.4 billion bbl of Iraq.
May 1969: The government of Taiwan provided oil exploration rights to Gulf, planted the Taiwanese flag on the Senkakus, and notified the world’s wire services of its action.
January 1970: The Taiwan government published a geography textbook for junior high school students that called the islands the Senkakus and treated them as Japanese territory
September 1970: The Okinawan police sent a ship to the Senkakus, removed the Taiwanese flag, and gave it to the Americans.
11 June 1971: The Taiwanese government claimed the islands as their own territory for the first time. Less than one week later:
17 June 1971: The treaty returning Okinawa to Japan from American control was signed.
30 December 1971: The People’s Republic of China claimed the islands as their own territory for the first time.
In 1992, China adopted legislation that authorized the use of force to enforce Chinese claims to the islets.
as such, Ampotan concludes, judging by the behavior of the PRC with regards to the arrest of Zhang Qixiong in 2010–the use of threats, threats of force, and overall immature behavior unfitting for a modern nation (including the decision to create "battle capable fishery vessels"), as posed against the far more measured response of Japan, Ampotan concludes that what China is performing is not merely a resource grab, but rather:
"…how a nation with arrested political development and without a sense of morality, with neither real friends nor real ideals–only size, money, and the desire to recreate the world as it existed two millenia ago–tries to seize the territory of another nation in the modern age and create a contemporary suzerainty."
Coming attractions « AMPONTAN
=========================================================================
I believe the Japanese really owned the Senkakus. I'll bet the Chinese would not agree to international arbitration.The Chinese are the REAL professional land grabbers of Asia.
As recently as 1953, according to research done by Ampotan, the PRC considered the Senkaku Islands to be Japanese territory, as they were claimed in 1895 through the legal caveat of terra nullius. That the PRC only claims them now is, in fact, due to territorial and resource ambition. To sum up Ampotan's findings in his excellently sourced, cited and researched article:
on the history of the islands:
"
The first recorded mention of the islets was in 1534 in Chen Kan’s Records of the Imperial Mission to Ryukyu. Chen, an envoy of the Ming Dynasty emperor to the Ryukyus, described his trip from China to Naha, as well as the customs of the native Okinawans. In his and several other accounts over the next two centuries, the islets were mentioned merely as geographic landmarks. The Chinese never indicated they considered them their territory, or anything more than specks in the ocean.
The first Japanese mention is in the Chuzan Seikan (Mirror of Chuzan), i.e., records of the Ryukyu Dynasty, which dates from 1650. As in the Chinese records, there is no indication they were considered anyone’s territory.
Fukuoka native Koga Tatsuhiro was making a living in Naha, Okinawa, catching and exporting finfish and shellfish when he discovered in 1884 that the islets were the habitat of the rare short-tailed albatross. He started collecting albatross feathers for sale in addition conducting to his fishing business. Ten years later, he applied to the government of Okinawa Prefecture to lease the islands. They turned him down because they weren’t sure who the islands belonged to. Koga then applied to the interior and agriculture ministries in Tokyo, and they turned him down for the same reason.
That did bring the islets to the attention of the Japanese government, however, and Koga’s persistence paid off. The Japanese claimed the islands under the legal principle of terra nullius—any nation can claim as its own, territory that is unclaimed by any other nation—and it became part of Japan. The Senkakus were uninhabited and unclaimed—indeed, they had never been administered at any time by the Chinese government, and there is no record of any Chinese ever living or working there.
The Chinese later charged the Japanese swiped the islets at the same time they wound up with the booty of Taiwan and the Penghu Islands at the end of the 1894-1895 Sino-Japanese War."
furthermore, according to Ampotan's research, the islands fell under US control after the end of WWII, and were returned to Japan with the return of Okinawa in 1971.
a timeline after the war goes like this with regards to PRC claims (and lack thereof) after WWII:
8 January 1953: Renmin Ribao (People’s Daily) published an article titled “The Ryukyu Islanders’ Struggle against American Occupation”　(i.e., Okinawa). The article mentioned the Senkakus, used that name, and stated they were part of the Ryukyus. Here’s a post from Michael Turton’s fine blog, The View from Taiwan, with more more detail on the article.
November 1958: A Beijing company published a map of the world showing the Senkakus as Japanese territory and using the Japanese name.
October 1965: The Research Institute for Taiwan’s Ministry of National Defense published a series of world maps. It showed the islets as part of Japanese territory and used the Japanese name Senkakus. Here is a color reproduction of the map itself on a Taiwanese website. The poster worries about how the map would affect the Taiwanese claim. Scroll down to see the magical mystery change on the map for the 1972 edition.
6 October 1968: The Taiwanese newspaper Lianhebao (United Daily News) published an article explaining that Taiwanese fishermen were prohibited from fishing in the Senkakus. They used the Japanese name.
12 October – 29 November 1968: Maritime specialists from Taiwan and South Korea conducted sea floor surveys of the East China Sea with the cooperation of the Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East (ECAFE), the regional arm of the United Nations Secretariat for the Asian and Pacific region. The report stated there was a possibility of large quantities of oil and natural gas under the seabed. It was later confirmed that there are at least 92 million bbl of oil available, with estimates of up to 100 billion bbl of oil, roughly equivalent to the 112.4 billion bbl of Iraq.
May 1969: The government of Taiwan provided oil exploration rights to Gulf, planted the Taiwanese flag on the Senkakus, and notified the world’s wire services of its action.
January 1970: The Taiwan government published a geography textbook for junior high school students that called the islands the Senkakus and treated them as Japanese territory
September 1970: The Okinawan police sent a ship to the Senkakus, removed the Taiwanese flag, and gave it to the Americans.
11 June 1971: The Taiwanese government claimed the islands as their own territory for the first time. Less than one week later:
17 June 1971: The treaty returning Okinawa to Japan from American control was signed.
30 December 1971: The People’s Republic of China claimed the islands as their own territory for the first time.
In 1992, China adopted legislation that authorized the use of force to enforce Chinese claims to the islets.
as such, Ampotan concludes, judging by the behavior of the PRC with regards to the arrest of Zhang Qixiong in 2010–the use of threats, threats of force, and overall immature behavior unfitting for a modern nation (including the decision to create "battle capable fishery vessels"), as posed against the far more measured response of Japan, Ampotan concludes that what China is performing is not merely a resource grab, but rather:
"…how a nation with arrested political development and without a sense of morality, with neither real friends nor real ideals–only size, money, and the desire to recreate the world as it existed two millenia ago–tries to seize the territory of another nation in the modern age and create a contemporary suzerainty."
Coming attractions « AMPONTAN
=========================================================================
I believe the Japanese really owned the Senkakus. I'll bet the Chinese would not agree to international arbitration.The Chinese are the REAL professional land grabbers of Asia.
NewCastle2012
FULL MEMBER
New Recruit
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2012
- Messages
- 76
- Reaction score
- 0
I will use your argument on the huangyan island: "They are so close to us. How could they be Japan's territory."
Diamond_Gold
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2012
- Messages
- 436
- Reaction score
- 0
Yeah, surely US can bully anyone in the whole world today, I definitely have no objection and intention to contest against it. LOLOL...
BTW, where is the evidence for saying the above "highlighted". Proof please?
Last point, I am a singaporean chinese, not a PRC chinese. In chinese, I am called a "HuaRen" whereas PRC people are called "ChongGuoRen". Got it? LOLOL... at a white Blur King... Oooops, although very unlikely.
WuMaoCleverbot
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- May 14, 2012
- Messages
- 470
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
I think you should read more before you post something that will make you look stupid. Your post has been rebutted numerous times in other threads here in PDF.
You should read this:
Philippine Position on Bajo de Masinloc and the Waters Within its Vicinity
Saturday, 28 April 2012 10:08 Public Information Services Unit
The basis of Philippine sovereignty and jurisdiction over the rock features of Bajo de Masinloc is not premised on the cession by Spain of the Philippine archipelago to the United States under the Treaty of Paris. The matter that the rock features of Bajo de Masinloc are not included or within the limits of the Treaty of Paris as alleged by China is therefore immaterial and of no consequence.
Philippine sovereignty and jurisdiction over the rocks of Bajo de Masinloc is likewise not premised on proximity or the fact that the rocks are within its 200-NM EEZ or CS under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Although the Philippines necessarily exercise sovereign rights over its EEZ and CS, nonetheless, the reason why the rock features of Bajo de Masinloc are Philippine territories is anchored on other principles of public international law.
As decided in a number of cases by international courts or tribunals, most notably the Palmas Island Case, a modality for acquiring territorial ownership over a piece of real estate is effective exercise of jurisdiction. Indeed, in that particular case, sovereignty over the Palmas Island was adjudged in favor of the Netherlands on the basis of “effective exercise of jurisdiction,” although the said island may have been historically discovered by Spain and historically ceded to the U.S. in the Treaty of Paris.
In the case of Bajo de Masinloc, the Philippines has exercised both effective occupation and effective jurisdiction over Bajo de Masinloc since its independence.
The name Bajo de Masinloc (translated as “under Masinloc”
itself identifies the shoal as a particular political subdivision of the Philippine province of Zambales, known as Masinloc.One of the earliest known and most accurate maps of the area, named Carta Hydrographical y Chorographica De Las Yslas Filipinas by Fr. Pedro Murillo Velarde, SJ, and published in 1734, included Bajo de Masinloc as part of Zambales.
The name Bajo de Masinloc was a name given to the shoal by the Spanish colonizers. In 1792, another map drawn by the Alejandro Malaspina expedition and published in 1808 in Madrid, Spain, also showed Bajo de Masinloc as part of Philippine territory. This map showed the route of the Malaspina expedition to and around the shoal. It was reproduced in the Atlas of the 1939 Philippine Census.
The Mapa General, Islas Filipinas, Observatorio de Manila, published in 1990 by the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey, also included Bajo de Masinloc as part of the Philippines.
Philippine flags have been erected on some of the islets of the shoal, including a flag raised on an 8.3-meter high flagpole in 1965 and another Philippine flag raised by Congressmen Roque Ablan and Jose Yap in 1997. In 1965, the Philippines also built and operated a small lighthouse in one of the islets in the shoal. In 1992, the Philippine Navy rehabilitated the lighthouse and reported it to the International Maritime Organization for publication in the List of Lights (currently, this lighthouse is not operational).
Bajo de Masinloc was also used as an impact range by Philippine and U.S. Naval Forces stationed in Subic Bay in Zambales for defense purposes. The Philippines Department of Environment and Natural Resources, together with the University of the Philippines, has also been conducting scientific, topographic, and marine studies in the shoal. Filipino fishermen have always considered it as their fishing grounds, owing to their proximity to the coastal towns and areas of Southwest Luzon.
In 2009, when the Philippines passed an amended Archipelagic Baselines Law that is fully consistent with the Law of the Sea, Bajo de Masinloc’s was classified under the “Regime of Islands” consistent with the Law of the Sea.
Section 2. The baseline in the following areas over which the Philippines likewise exercises sovereignty and jurisdiction shall be determined as “Regime of Islands” under the Republic of the Philippines consistent with Article 121 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS):
a) The Kalayaan Island Group as constituted under Presidential Decree No. 1596; and
b) Bajo de Masinloc, also known as Scarborough Shoal.
http://dfa.gov.ph/main/index.php/ne...e-masinloc-and-the-waters-within-its-vicinity
NewCastle2012
FULL MEMBER
New Recruit
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2012
- Messages
- 76
- Reaction score
- 0
I am thrilled that I already have fans in PDF. Since I have only posted 22 replies so far, please provide evidences to support your statement:"Your post has been rebutted numerous times in other threads here in PDF". Otherwise, you are just bluffing.
You also need to make a distinction between ownership and illegal occupation. You really sounds like a bad tenant "Since we leave here, we are not going to move". But that's no going to work.
Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/china-...chinese-protests-threats-2.html#ixzz240gRRTP5
"
You also need to make a distinction between ownership and illegal occupation. You really sounds like a bad tenant "Since we leave here, we are not going to move". But that's no going to work.
Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/china-...chinese-protests-threats-2.html#ixzz240gRRTP5
"
Kiss_of_the_Dragon
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2011
- Messages
- 10,253
- Reaction score
- 11
- Country
- Location
Why China needs to fight war just to please Americans? that's the only reason that Chinese government keep this issue at low profile that doesn't mean we're hidding our head in the sand. We're more interested to displace U.S from global domination than focusing on this tiny issue: U.S has done a great efford to use Japanese to lock chinese attentions in Asia so preventing China to challenge them in other regions such Africa, Middle east or south latine America...nice try but let see if China will take the bait...
Worry more about that U.S will become a land of Latino peoples and Black peoples...I do believe that U.S will be partitioned..you will live long enought to wetness that moment...LMAO...you want to play Japanese game...we're looking for parity.
SinoChallenger
BANNED
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2011
- Messages
- 3,523
- Reaction score
- 0
Then China will declare war on Japan by June 2013 and no later right?? I will wait for this with bated breath! Surely you cannot be wrong about how your own country operates!
Just two years ago, Japan had full naval control over Diaoyu Islands. Now they are struggling against China's multi-vector attacks. These activists are REacting in desperation.Keep praying to your kama. We love the way you people fry in the heat like bacon.Oh my God! I'm so scared with your toys.
Hopefully China will start purging the foreigner loving faction of CCP like Wen Jiabao and Dai Bingguo now and bring back Mao's fighting spirit.
Thanks
How do you think China became so big?
ajtr
BANNED
- Joined
- May 25, 2010
- Messages
- 9,357
- Reaction score
- 0
It feels boring when you type long post.I love it when you post pics pf tanks,ships,planes.After all one pic is worth 100 words................
Keep praying to your kama. We love the way you people fry in the heat like bacon.
Hopefully China will start purging the foreigner loving faction of CCP like Wen Jiabao and Dai Bingguo now and bring back Mao's fighting spirit.
Thanks
Ajaxpaul
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2011
- Messages
- 4,412
- Reaction score
- -5
It feels boring when you type long post.I love it when you post pics pf tanks,ships,planes.After all one pic is worth 100 words................
Now surely Ballistic missile in truck picture will come...
BigDaddyWatch
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- May 31, 2012
- Messages
- 727
- Reaction score
- 1
And look how well the response to 9/11 has worked out for you. More than 6500 soldiers dead almost 50,000 wounded not to mention the hunderds of thousands of young soldiers traumatized for life. And spend about 3 to 4 trillion dollars on two wars. Only part of the 16 trillion dollars of national debt that America has since then racked up. While that was happening abroad and Americans where looking to pick the next fight back home the robber barons on Wallstreet was bankrupting the economy and the nation under the eyes of the leaders that where to busy looking at Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran. Not to mention the freedoms that Americans are so keen and proud of that have been eroded by a alphabet soup of legeslation and institution that where brought in in the wake of 9/11. Patriot Act, Homeland Security, TSA, NDAA, wiretap without court order, racial profiling by police forces, drones over US cities, surveillance cameras at every corner etc etc etc. In America today you cannot step on a plane without being groped. And what has Bin Laden lost a few training camps in Afghanistan, a few hundred dead al-Qeada fighters and in the end he's own life. But i would say that Bin Laden has won the war on terror hands down.
Zulkarneyn
BANNED
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2010
- Messages
- 2,633
- Reaction score
- 5
- Country
- Location
I would post a facepalm, but since it is not allowed i won't. Japan teaching China a lesson, are you serious?
Juice
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2010
- Messages
- 4,018
- Reaction score
- -1
- Country
- Location
Wouldn't be the first time...
Peregrine
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2009
- Messages
- 3,672
- Reaction score
- 0
But times have changed. Japan has fallen behind China in economy, what to speak of it's puny self defence force vis a vis mighty PLA.
Similar threads
