Should India officially support Japan's sovereignty over the Senkakus?

[sicsheep]

Which country apart from USA and India you expect to take side? If USA takes side, that means Nato is on the side of Japan. Or do you expect France or Italy or Australia making a side taking statement in public? Russia will not because Russia itself occupies large territories of Japan. Only one left is India as a vital military power and it would have taken side, had your DM not come to India to make some concessions under the table. What I want to say is that only those will take side who have stakes or interests tied to side taking.

Well, What is India waiting for?

 

[Joe Shearer]

Well, What is India waiting for?

Cut us some slack.

Our National Security Advisor still has to pass his competitive exams. Meanwhile he is doing deep research into the subject of comfort women.

 

[sicsheep]

Cut us some slack.

Our National Security Advisor still has to pass his competitive exams. Meanwhile he is doing deep research into the subject of comfort women.

I hope research doesn't go too deep or hes gonna piss off some Koreans for sure. LOL

 

[Kiss_of_the_Dragon]

Definitely India needs to support Japan and India should publicly propose Japan to send troops to be deployed on the Senkakus.

Should India officially support Japan's sovereignty over the Senkakus???...Still waiting for Indian official statement your spineless gorverment is waiting for China's approval for this statement...or else you all will get staple visa as usual

 

[Joe Shearer]

Should India officially support Japan's sovereignty over the Senkakus???...Still waiting for Indian official statement your spineless gorverment is waiting for China's approval for this statement...or else you all will get staple visa as usual

Spot on!

Please ask your drinking buddies in the politburo to give us permission quickly. It hurts our knees to wait this long.

Please.

I hope research doesn't go too deep or hes gonna piss off some Koreans for sure. LOL

He's already pissed off both Chinese and Indians. What're a few Koreans, more or less?

 

[Plexyre]

Some documents you may need to go through can be downloaded from the link posted below.

Society the Dissemination of Historical Fact

I say it again, more war crimes were committed by the Allied troops, wholesale rapes were committed by the Allied troops. Go read about how the Anglo Saxons raped women of all ages wherever they landed for occupation, Google war crimes by Allied troops and you get the results, I am not posting as its off topic, so many war crimes by them went unnoticed and unpunished be it in Okinawa or Berlin.

The day before yesterday some madarc**d professional was lecturing me about war crimes committed by Japanese troops whereas the British American or Russian troops were angels according to that troll. There are many documents (motion and still photos) which show how captured enemy troops were executed in a firing squad, if you search on youtube, you will get some.

The papers in the link you gave contains a lot of bias and not enough objectiveness in it (not surprised since it is operated by Japanese right-wingers). Not only that, those papers do not present individual accounts of what happened nor do they give other sources to support their claims, thus they lack documental value.

These are matters that are accepted internationally as having occurred and are taught in history class, even nearly all Japanese textbooks include them albeit using more mundane terms to describe them. Chinese survivors who did not get buried alive/bayoneted to death as well as foreigners in the areas and Japanese soldiers have given eyewitness accounts and personal testimonies that support it too. As for Japan, near the end of the war they destroyed their records and documents from their archives detailing their various war crimes for fear of implication, which is why it's hard to come across Japanese documentary evidence.

If it is as you say, then Japan should have had nothing to fear from showing the documents to prove they did not commit such atrocities. Oh wait, they destroyed them, that was a bad move (or it was a good move for them since they would be implicated). If only historical revisionism were so easy

Comfort women - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And here's a link to a U.S. government agency's archive:

http://www.archives.gov/iwg/japanese-war-crimes/introductory-essays.pdf

Allied nations have unfortunately also committed such atrocities, in particular Stalin who condoned mass rape by his army in war. The difference between them and Japan is that unlike Japan, they do not have prime ministers and diplomats who openly deny such crimes.

Back to the topic, should India support Japan's sovereignty over Diaoyu/Diaoyutai islands? That's up to India really. If India feels it is in its interest to do so then by all means go ahead (not that it will make any difference). Although such a stance would hurt India's image of non-alignment, not to mention that the issue has nothing to do with India in the first place

I should also mention that even the U.S. has not recognized sovereignty of the islands by any party; it views that as a matter to be settled between China and Japan. Back in 1971, America gave the Diaoyu/Diaoyutai islands to Japan for administration. Administration does not equal sovereignty. If you want to know the difference, ask Margaret Thatcher when she proposed letting China administrate Hong Kong with UK retaining sovereignty over it

 

[Enemy]

This kind of poor memory recall will never get you through either the IAS or even the IPS, and then you will have to join politics or the Patna Bar Association for a living.

To refresh your memory, you came out with some utterly ignorant lines about the status of combatants who were fighting for professional reasons and their liability to suffer losses in battle. You were then educated that the pictures you were referring to were pictures of disarmed prisoners of war being executed; that the treatment of prisoners of war was governed by the Geneva conventions, which apparently you did not know; and that the content of the pictures constituted war crimes.

At that point, having no answer, you broke into dialect and, of course, the depth of your knowledge and competence to discuss military topics were revealed.

I have no interest in your bucolic ramblings, and am writing this to correct the selective, even constructive failures of your memory. While that behaviour displays a proper state of mind to take up constabulary duties in Bhagalpur, the thought of your involvement with the competitive examinations is a thrilling one. I wish the IPS and IAS the very best of luck, and hope that they will stand up to your onslaught with fortitude.

I believe I am talking to a great IAS/IPS topper who chose to go by the study of details seen in the photos posted elsewhere.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-...up-indian-mutineers-canons-5.html#post3376713

I just wonder how the great IAS/IPS topper could not notice the persons being executed were wearing no uniforms which may suggest they might not have been able to qualify to the status of combatants.

To be entitled to prisoner-of-war status, captured service members must be lawful combatants entitled to combatant's privilege—which gives them immunity from punishment for crimes constituting lawful acts of war such as killing enemy troops. To qualify under the Third Geneva Convention, a combatant must have conducted military operations according to the laws and customs of war, be part of a chain of command, wear a "fixed distinctive marking, visible from a distance" and bear arms openly. (The Convention recognizes a few other groups as well, such as persons "who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units".)

Thus, uniforms and/or badges are important in determining prisoner-of-war status; and francs-tireurs, terrorists, saboteurs, mercenaries and spies do not qualify

So were they mercenaries? Mercenaries don't get PoW status and treatment. Yes some may also suggest they were non-combatant civilians.

Since, I was educated or asked to believe they were combatants, still, questions would arise whether they had been prosecuted for committing war crimes before the executions were held as seen in the photos. They were not wearing uniforms after all.

Prosecution

International law permits the prosecution of prisoners of war accused of war
crimes.(Geneva Convention 1949:Art 85). While the overwhelming majority of the
4,47 million Japanese prisoners of war were repatriated after the Japanese surrender,
small numbers were selected for prosecution (Dower 1986:298). Between 1945 and
1951, 814 Japanese, Formosan and Korean prisoners of war were prosecuted in 295
trials, with convictions obtained in 235, under the Australian War Crimes Act,
primarily for offenses against prisoners of war (Sissons 1997). The resulting
detailed narratives of the atrocities committed and the convictions of the defendants
served the purpose of justifying sacrifices made during the war, while the acquittals
would have reinforced liberal ideological values as demonstrations that the judicial
process provided a measure of justice to the accused as well as the accusers.
Another, less obvious purpose served by the trials was to provide political
intelligence after the end of hostilities (Maga 2001:42). Information detailing the
military preparedness and battle planning of the Japanese were revealed in some of
the testimony given during the trial (Maga 2001:42.)

http://www.ajol.info/index.php/smsajms/article/viewFile/42654/9522

And since we cannot establish whether the below stated Judicial Proceedings had taken place before the executions, we cannot say they were illegal executions and nowhere I found Judicial Proceedings had to be held far away from battlefields.

III. Judicial proceedings

Art. 60. At the commencement of a judicial hearing against a prisoner of war, the detaining Power shall notify the representative of the protecting Power as soon as possible, and in any case before the date fixed for the opening of the hearing.
The said notification shall contain the following
particulars:
(a) Civil status and rank of the prisoner.
(b) Place of residence or detention.
(c) Statement of the charge or charges, and of the legal provisions applicable.
If it is not possible in this notification to indicate particulars of the court which will try the case, the date of the opening of the hearing and the place where it will take place, these particulars shall be furnished to the representative of the protecting Power at a later date, but as soon as possible and in any case at least three weeks before the opening of the hearing.


Art. 61. No prisoner of war shall be sentenced without being given the opportunity to defend himself.
No prisoner shall be compelled to admit that he is guilty of the offence of which he is accused.


Art. 62. The prisoner of war shall have the right to be assisted by a qualified. advocate of his own choice and, if necessary, to have recourse to the offices of a competent interpreter. He shall be informed of his right by the detaining Power in good time before the hearing.
Failing a choice on the part of the prisoner, the protecting Power may procure an advocate for him. The detaining Power shall, on the request of the protecting Power, furnish to the latter a list of persons qualified to conduct the defence.
The representatives of the protecting Power shall have the right to attend the hearing of the case.
The only exception to this rule is where the hearing has to be kept secret in the interests of the safety of the State. The detaining Power would then notify the protecting Power accordingly.


Art. 63. A sentence shall only be pronounced on a prisoner of war by the same tribunals and in accordance with the same procedure as in the case of persons belonging to the armed forces of the detaining Power.


Art. 64. Every prisoner of war shall have the right of appeal against any sentence against him in the same manner as persons belonging to the armed forces of the detaining Power.


Art. 65. Sentences pronounced against prisoners of war shall be communicated immediately to the protecting Power.


Art. 66. If sentence of death is passed on a prisoner of war, a communication setting forth in detail the nature and the circumstances of the offence shall be addressed as soon as possible to the representative of the protecting Power for transmission to the Power in whose armed forces the prisoner served.
The sentence shall not be carried out before the expiration of a period of at least three months from the date of the receipt of this communication by the protecting Power.


Art. 67. No prisoner of war may be deprived of the benefit of the provisions of Article 42 of the present Convention as the result of a judgment or otherwise.

International Humanitarian Law - Geneva Convention Prisoners of War 1929

Allied troops even refused to take Japanese PoWs and they thought it is better to shoot the surrendering troops and finish the story on spot.

American troops 'murdered Japanese PoWs'

American and Australian soldiers massacred Japanese prisoners of war, according to one of the most detailed studies of memoirs of the Second World War in the Pacific, published this week.

American troops 'murdered Japanese PoWs' - Telegraph

That is the reality of war.

I said in my post Mr IAS/IPS topper.

Should India officially support Japan's sovereignty over the Senkakus???...Still waiting for Indian official statement your spineless gorverment is waiting for China's approval for this statement...or else you all will get staple visa as usual

I am sure US will do something about it to make India support Japanese sovereignty over the Senkakus. Actually we all act according to the script written by Pentagon.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I believe I am talking to a great IAS/IPS topper who chose to go by the study of details seen in the photos posted elsewhere.

Actually, as those who have been following my posts over the last three years already know, I did rather better.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-...up-indian-mutineers-canons-5.html#post3376713

I just wonder how the great IAS/IPS topper could not notice the persons being executed were wearing no uniforms which may suggest they might not have been able to qualify to the status of combatants.

I am not an IAS/IPS topper; that is nowadays the province of backwoodsmen from a certain rather rustic part of eastern India.

I am a student of military matters. Thanks to my high level of training, and my training in reading English, I was able to detect that these were disarmed Indian soldiers.

Of course, you must be aware that shooting non-combatants is also a war-crime.

So were they mercenaries? Mercenaries don't get PoW status and treatment. Yes some may also suggest they were non-combatant civilians.

Refer captions for full enlightenment.

Since, I was educated or asked to believe they were combatants, still, questions would arise whether they had been prosecuted for committing war crimes before the executions were held as seen in the photos. They were not wearing uniforms after all.

You really must do your homework first.

The Japanese never conducted trials for war crimes. They resorted to summary executions.

There is no record of war crimes against Indian troops serving in the south-east Asian theatre. Nothing at all.

And since we cannot establish whether the below stated Judicial Proceedings had taken place before the executions, we cannot say they were illegal executions and nowhere I found Judicial Proceedings had to be held far away from battlefields.

How confused can you get?

Read the record for war crimes trials of Japanese officers. These same crimes are mentioned and recorded in full detail.

Second, if judicial proceedings do not take place, they are illegal executions. There is no record of any judicial proceedings by the Japanese.

Allied troops even refused to take Japanese PoWs and they thought it is better to shoot the surrendering troops and finish the story on spot.

Aah, I believe that the present discussion was about your ignorance about the rules governing the taking of prisoners of war, and their subsequent treatment. Not about which side conducted war crimes.

It is also on record that Japanese troops did not surrender but made suicidal charges at the end.

I said in my post Mr IAS/IPS topper.

Perhaps you had better concentrate on the bar exams and a political career. Even the IPS may not be able to absorb you.

 

[KS]

One point I would like to make in this whole hulla-bullo is there is no point in Indians being spiteful of either the Allies or the Axis powers. They were both the same to us. Err...not exactly..India as a land suffered at the hands of one of the Allied powers than it ever did at the hands of any of the Axis powers.

What anyone did in Europe or in Nanjing may be morally bad - something going apeshit somewhere, but affects me in no tangible way. What matters is who went apeshit in this land.

And yeah the Imperial Japanese do have a kinda martial allure surrounding them.

 

[Enemy]

Actually, as those who have been following my posts over the last three years already know, I did rather better.

Wow, what a self-certification!

I am not an IAS/IPS topper; that is nowadays the province of backwoodsmen from a certain rather rustic part of eastern India. I am a student of military matters.

Am I talking to some former Superintendent of the USMA?

Thanks to my high level of training, and my training in reading English, I was able to detect that these were disarmed Indian soldiers.

Recruited by the British of course as Indian Army was established on 15 August 1947 whereas WWII had ended in 1946.

BTW, your self-certification continued. Did you really print certificates to glorify your own self?

Of course, you must be aware that shooting non-combatants is also a war-crime.

I am also aware of the fact that shooting mercenaries is not war-crime.

There is no record of war crimes against Indian troops serving in the south-east Asian theatre. Nothing at all.

I am confused. Your "high level of training, and [your] training in reading English" made you able to detect those as "disarmed Indian soldiers" but you say there is no record available.

So they were either mercenaries or non-combatants and not "Indian troops."

FYI, here are some actual uniform wearing British Indian soldiers as PoWs and I can't see any war crime being done to them.

How confused can you get?

Read the record for war crimes trials of Japanese officers. These same crimes are mentioned and recorded in full detail.

Didn't you just say "There is no record of war crimes against Indian troops."

Second, if judicial proceedings do not take place, they are illegal executions. There is no record of any judicial proceedings by the Japanese.

Then it may also be the case that they did not qualify to be PoWs. Of course that does not necessarily mean they were non-combatants as they could be mercenaries.

Aah, I believe that the present discussion was about your ignorance about the rules governing the taking of prisoners of war, and their subsequent treatment. Not about which side conducted war crimes.

Then war crimes are the reality of war, which I already said, didn't I?

It is also on record that Japanese troops did not surrender but made suicidal charges at the end.

All Japanese troops? Sure? Link? Careful, I may counter it with valid proof.

Perhaps you had better concentrate on the bar exams and a political career. Even the IPS may not be able to absorb you.

Oh I see, thanks for the advice from a self-certified military expert with high level training and training in reading English.

Man that "training in reading English" was classic!

 

[Joe Shearer]

Wow, what a self-certification!

Thank you. I aim to please.

Am I talking to some former Superintendent of the USMA?

Overkill, don't you think, for responses to your comments? If you want to cover up your basic boo-boos, you are welcome to do so. The fact remains that you are not aware of the conventions, and displayed that lack of awareness in full measure.

Recruited by the British of course as Indian Army was established on 15 August 1947 whereas WWII had ended in 1946.

Wrong as usual, on both counts, as usual.

The Indian Army has been the Indian Army since 1895. Look it up.

It was the Indian Army because it was the Army of the only political entity called India. The name was inherited by the Indian Army of independent India, just as the name India was inherited from the earlier, undivided India.

WWII ended in 1945, in May, if we take VE Day, in August, for VJ Day. There was no significant date in 1946. But then, this carelessness and sloppy detail is typical of what we have to suffer.

BTW, your self-certification continued. Did you really print certificates to glorify your own self?

No.

The forum software prints it on the side.

I am also aware of the fact that shooting mercenaries is not war-crime.

You are wrong once again. Your ignorance and your egregious assumptions are truly incompetent and ignorant.

A mercenary loses combatant status. A mercenary loses no other rights whatsoever.

I am confused. Your "high level of training, and [your] training in reading English" made you able to detect those as "disarmed Indian soldiers" but you say there is no record available.

There is nothing confusing about it except that you do not understand even the fundamentals of the situation. Largely because you want to cover your original mistakes by creating confusion.

Let me make it easier for you. Not a single Indian soldier was accused or convicted of committing a war crime. Is there anything in that statement that does not seem comprehensible to you?

So they were either mercenaries or non-combatants and not "Indian troops."

Silly assumptions, which do not follow from the discussion or the evidence, only from a deliberate attempt to cpnfuse issues. They were neither mercenaries nor non-combatants. They were Indian troops; it is not clear why you have put inverted commas around that phrase.

FYI, here are some actual uniform wearing British Indian soldiers as PoWs and I can't see any war crime being done to them.

This is really funny. Did anyone say that war crimes were conducted against every Indian POW?

Didn't you just say "There is no record of war crimes against Indian troops."

Yes. There is not a single case on record of an Indian soldier committing a war crime. On the other hand, Japanese officers have been tried, convicted and punished for these crimes.

Then it may also be the case that they did not qualify to be PoWs. Of course that does not necessarily mean they were non-combatants as they could be mercenaries.

The record shows that POWs were massacred. It is for you to prove that uniformed soldiers belonging to a fighting formation were not entitled to be treated as POWs.

You are wrong again about mercenaries; mercenaries are non-combatants.

Then war crimes are the reality of war, which I already said, didn't I?

The difference is that you implied that war crimes were normal behaviour. In fact,they are considered crimes in international law, and punished accordingly.

All Japanese troops? Sure? Link? Careful, I may counter it with valid proof.

My statement as it stands makes the position clear. Adding qualifications to it and then challenging it is laughably childish.

Oh I see, thanks for the advice from a self-certified military expert with high level training and training in reading English.

Man that "training in reading English" was classic!

You should try it some time. It will help you in adult life.

 

[Rafi]

My grandfather was in Burma - fighting the Japanese, he told us nightmarish scenes of Japanese soldiers bayoneting young children, of Punjabi PoW's starved till they were just skin and bones. Of casual brutality - to the civilian population, and of them taking native woman.

 

[Rafi]

Thanks to JS for his message - cannot reply as do not yet have message privilege. The soldiers who fought fascism are hero's in my opinion.

 

[Enemy]

Well, in short...

A mercenary loses combatant status. A mercenary loses no other rights whatsoever.

I was talking about PoW status. I was not concerned with "other rights whatsoever." The point of the debate was PoW status or Prisoners of War status.

They were neither mercenaries nor non-combatants. They were Indian troops; it is not clear why you have put inverted commas around that phrase.

May be or may be not as far as the photos tell us.

Even if they were troops as you strongly believe, the question is which country's army they were representing or to which country's interests their loyalties did lay... I may not need to elaborate it further.

You are wrong again about mercenaries; mercenaries are non-combatants.

It is wrong to say that. Mercenaries are unlawful combatants.

An unlawful combatant or illegal combatant or unprivileged combatant/belligerent is a civilian who directly engages in armed conflict in violation of the laws of war. An unlawful combatant may be detained or prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action.

Mercenaries

Under Article 47 of Protocol I (Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts) it is stated in the first sentence "A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war."

On 4 December 1989 the United Nations passed resolution 44/34 the International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries. It entered into force on 20 October 2001 and is usually known as the UN Mercenary Convention.[20] Article 2 makes it an offence to employ a mercenary and Article 3.1 states that "A mercenary, as defined in article 1 of the present Convention, who participates directly in hostilities or in a concerted act of violence, as the case may be, commits an offence for the purposes of the Convention."

The difference is that you implied that war crimes were normal behaviour.

I never implied that, thats your own assumption for which I can't take responsibility. I said war crimes are reality of war and it in no way implies war crimes are tantamount to normal behavior.

In fact,they are considered crimes in international law, and punished accordingly.

Unfortunately he is not alive, otherwise, Justice Radha Binod Pal, the Indian member appointed to the International Military Tribunal for the Far East's trials of Japanese war crimes committed during the second World War, would have replied to you accordingly.

I ask all the readers of this post to try to know how Justice Radha Binod Pal saw war crimes committed in WW II.



Listen Joe Shearer, I hope you have already understood what I have been insinuating myself for throughout the debate. What I want to say finally is that I stand by my own opinion and refuse to accept your propaganda which may have brainwashed others.