Japan Is No Threat, Just A Strong Power

Lexico: I meant to say exactly what I did, that's what.

As for kooks shouting idiotic slogans like "kill, kill, kill," what exactly is it you're trying to say - that those idiots represent the Japanese government or all of its people, and therefore Japan shouldn't be allowed to have the same types of military capabilities as, say, China has? Of course its neighbors who don't like Japan don't want it to have the same military capabilities that they do. So appeasement is your preferred solution? Japan must kowtow to its hostile neighbors who threaten it, so as not to upset them?

Just last month North Korea fired a missile into the Sea of Japan. Just a few days before that, Vice Adm. Lowell Jacoby, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, had told the U.S. Senate that the North Koreans knew how to arm a missile with a nuclear weapon, a potentially significant advance for the communist state. And China already has thousands of nuclear bomb missiles, armed and ready to fire. So if there is any arms race, it certainly won't be Japan who started it. Citation.

I never said China shot missiles over Japan itself. In 1996 China tested ballistic missiles, with a few of them landing near Japanese shipping lanes.

Click to expand...

Nope, you said in your exact words

especially with China shooting nuclear-capable missiles over Japanese territory and North Korea rapidly developing its nuclear capability.

Click to expand...

which you went back and CHANGED into

especially with China shooting nuclear-capable missiles near Japanese territory and North Korea rapidly developing its nuclear capability.

Click to expand...

You made a mistake, denied you made one, and quietly went back to correct it.

It is also very convenient that you left out that the target of China's 1996 missile testing was Taiwan's election [which could have carried an independence mandate subsequently abandonned], not Japan. And shipping lanes which are shared by all of Japan's neighbours, cannot be in anyway construed as "Japanese territory", until perhaps someday when Japan exercises its new "offensive" option.

Funny how, in a period of high tension and distrust, that some people would advocate military ESCALATION instead of dialogue, diplomacy, multilateral summits to work out common solutions to entirely resolvable problems.

lexico,

Amazing compilation of facts/sites that show with solid substantiation that Japan is very much capable of defending itself. You must have thousands of monkeys doing the Googling for you. Thanks for the effort and for packing your posts with information! I'm banned from giving any more reputation points, unfortunately.

Conspiracy ?

Thanks for the encouragement; those who helped me weren't a thousand monkeys, but the hard-working Jref forumers who had invested much time and effort to locate and put in proper context such knowledge.

qwertyu said:

I'm banned from giving any more reputation points, unfortunately.

Click to expand...

Not for the day, but permanently :?
If that is the case, I can only imagine, but not comprehend, what could have caused that to happen.
A wild guess could be that a business decision rather than a reflection of objectivity or truthfulness was at work ?
If keeping some members/advertisers happy carries higher priority, that could be considered to bear witness upon the forum's general quality as a whole.
But that's just my opinion.

Anyhow, sorry that hppened to you, Quertyu, especially after all the hard work and long hours you've put in to bring some balance to the oft overlooked revisionist propaganda and the biased, low-quality information they entail.

Please understand, that being an open board, much freedom is allowed to post almost any content as long as they are non-commercial, non-abusive, and non-graphic.

If indeed your repping privilege was revoked, that must have involved a certain standard that has not been made public for some obscure reason that I am unable to comprehend. I say so because I cannot conceive from my understanding of your character I induced from your past posts of any reputation comment that you could have made might have violated one of the forum policies. You have been quite an exemplar poster for bringing in relevant facts, observations, and solid reasoning where, when they were lacking. Thank you for your dedication to truth and justice without which it will become difficult to make peace in this troubled sea of dishonest propagandas, whether of Japanese, Chinese, Korean, American, or other origin.

No, no, it's not at all like that. It's a misunderstanding. I can't give you and bossel rep points until I have spread them around more, but then there aren't that many others posting actively and substantially, so that's difficult. I usually give rep points for good thorough arguments backed up by well-researched links. I'm also very short of leisure time to browse extensively other threads, so...

Oh, I understand now, and apologize for the misunderstanding which is totally my fault. If I implied any undue criticism, I retract my criticism on Japan Reference Forum for conspiracy in post "Conspiracy ?".

qwertyu said:

Nope, you said in your exact words ... which you went back and CHANGED into ... You made a mistake, denied you made one, and quietly went back to correct it.

Click to expand...

No, dearie. I changed "over Japanese territory" to "near Japanese territory" because that's more accurate. What I said later was that I never said over Japan itself. And that's true: I never said China shot missiles over Japan itself (as North Korea has). And I never denied my original post about Japanese territory. Of course, no one had asked me about that. I just corrected it to make it more accurate, as Lexico told me I should always do.

It's irresponsible for you to accuse me of changing something that I didn't, when I changed something else entirely. But it fits right in with the "logic" of your other arguments as well: deceptive and disingenuous.

would you, please, clarify me some questions?
Summing written above: so, Japan is quite capable at self-defence, and, besides, has this 'american umbrella'. But all the military activity restricted to the state`s boundaries?
Having military means that the country can act on the other`s state ground or participate in UN peacemaking corps?

"I'm banned from giving any more reputation points, unfortunately."

*Lengthy reply from Lex*

"No, no, it's not at all like that. It's a misunderstanding. I can't give you and bossel rep points until I have spread them around more..."

*"Conspiracy" retraction*

Heh, you guys crack me up... The fault lies in Qwertyu's choice of wording, not your interpretation Lex. When I first read that his rep pt. privileges had been "banned", I too thought "what?" I hope you'll think more highly of us Lex next time. "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar" ya know. 8-p

Iron Chef said:

Heh, you guys crack me up...

Click to expand...

Yeah, they crack me up too.

I'm more concerned with people who have signatures that take up an entire page and won't adjust them or people who go around attacking people for no reason.

I'm kind of offended by thoughts of a conspiracy. Oh well. I guess some people just can't help but to think that...

Continue with hearty argument, which there's nothing wrong with...

Sorry, that was an honest mistake. I thought the rep point restrictions are well-known. Lexico, not your fault at all. Should have said "banned from giving you points till I've spread rep points around to others." Too lazy!

But it fits right in with the "logic" of your other arguments as well: deceptive and disingenuous.

Click to expand...

Care to substantiate your nasty accusation of "deception"? I challenge you to back up your offensive allegations by quoting from any of my postings which serve to deceive, mislead and misinform.

Also, tell me, what in your definition of the difference between "Japan" and "Japanese territory"?

There is none as far as definitions go. The country of Japan geographically covers all Japanese Territory which is equivalent to Japanese land and waters. So what is the difference between "over Japan" and "over Japanese Territory"?


ter窶ｦMri窶ｦMto窶ｦMry (tr-t窶ｦﾅ?r, -tr)
n. pl. ter窶ｦMri窶ｦMto窶ｦMries
1. An area of land; a region.
2. The land and waters under the jurisdiction of a government.

territory

However, there is a HUGE difference between firing missiles OVER Japan/Japanese Territory and NEAR Japan/Japanese Territory. The former is a violation of international law governing sovereignty, the latter isn't.

There is also a HUGE difference in "conveniently" leaving out the fact that the missiles' target wasn't Japan, but Taiwan.

Now this IS deceptive and dishonest.

There is so much brandishing of the new China threat, from its bid to buy US assets [China owns less US asset than tiny Luxemburg, and the US have bought substantially more China assets] to its recent "aggressive" military build-up. This is the pretext for arms escalation from derailing the CTBT, NPT to changing Japan's Constitution. What are the facts behind the hype?

This is an interesting read rom Atomic Scientists:

Article Commentary: A Sustained Reaction - Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

"The true scope of China's nuclear capabilities are hidden in plain sight, among the myriad declassified assessments produced by the U.S. intelligence community. Yet, such analyses have run afoul of conservative legislators, who express dismay when threat assessments don't conform to their perceptions of reality. Congressional Republicans, for instance, in 2000 created the China Futures Panel, chaired by former Gen. John Tilelli, to examine charges of bias in the CIA assessments of China. In 2002, Bob Schaffer, a Republican congressman from Colorado, complained about the latest National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) of foreign ballistic missile development in a letter to CIA director George Tenet: "The lack of attention to the pronounced and growing danger caused by China's ballistic missile buildup, and its aggressive strategy for using its ballistic missiles cannot go unchallenged. The report is misleading, and, because it understates the magnitude of threat, is profoundly dangerous."

So, the analyses from the CIA are out there for all to see, but the politicians are dismayed that they don't sound threatening enough and do not conform to their perception. Iraq's WMD deja-vu?

Just recalled an old saying of some soviet scientist who worked with the nuke staff:
"I thought, that the nuke energy can be used in two ways: as peaceful atom and for military purposes. But looks like it also can be used for reaching personal goals"

qwertyu said:

I challenge you to back up your offensive allegations by quoting from any of my postings which serve to deceive, mislead and misinform.

Click to expand...

You started with your offensive allegations against me. I'm not going to continue that game.

qwertyu said:

Also, tell me, what in your definition of the difference between "Japan" and "Japanese territory"?

Click to expand...

No one really fluent in English and even halfway honest would have to be told the difference. Take a look at the definition of "territory" that you posted. Territory includes the "waters under the jurisdiction of the government" as well as the land that is actually part of the country. No native speaker of English would read "over Japan itself" as including "only over waters under the jurisdiction of Japan."

You are apparently residing in Hong Kong, China, you (and some others here) are obviously well schooled in the current anti-Japanese propaganda of the Chinese government, and have apparently come over to this forum (which is devoted to people interested in Japan), for no reason other than to badmouth Japan and generally spread anti-Japanese propaganda, and to attack anyone like me who has the temerity to say anything in Japan's defense. And the English word for that type of creature is "troll."

Bramicus said:

No one really fluent in English and even halfway honest would have to be told the difference.

Click to expand...

Oh really? But is it really as you tell us? M-W has as its 1st option for territory:
1 a : a geographical area belonging to or under the jurisdiction of a governmental authority

What comes closest to your definition appears as:
2 a : an indeterminate geographical area

Indeterminate, hmmm?

No native speaker of English would read "over Japan itself" as including "only over waters under the jurisdiction of Japan."

Click to expand...

1) You didn't say "over Japan itself", you said "over Japanese territory."
2) Even if that were true, could there be a certain possibility that this forum is not only for native English speakers?

You seem confused, Bossel. I'll try to explain it to you.

bossel said:

Oh really? But is it really as you tell us? M-W has as its 1st option for territory: 1 a : a geographical area belonging to or under the jurisdiction of a governmental authority. What comes closest to your definition appears as: 2 a : an indeterminate geographical area. Indeterminate, hmmm?

Click to expand...

Use any definition you like. To save argument, I just used the definition that Qwertyu used. The point is, not everything that is over Japanese territory is "over Japan itself."

bossel said:

You didn't say "over Japan itself", you said "over Japanese territory."

Click to expand...

Exactly! And they are different things. What you just said is exactly what I've been saying all along: I never said "over Japan itself" -- I said "over Japanese territory" which is different. I think the missile didn't actually go over Japanese territory either, just near it, so I edited my post accordingly as Lexico told me I should do, but either way, I certainly never said "over Japan itself." Glad you agree with me.

bossel said:

Even if that were true, could there be a certain possibility that this forum is not only for native English speakers?

Click to expand...

What's your point? I can only write English according to its actual meaning, not according to how people who don't understand English well might misinterpret it. You want to blame me for saying something I didn't say because people who don't understand English well misunderstood what I wrote to mean something different?

Well, you can insist that your personal definition of geographic Japan EXCLUDES Japanese sea territory without providing any substantiation, and of course there's the official definition out there. Here's another:

Explore What Defines a State, Sovereign State, Country, and Nation
" Let's start with what defines a State or an independent country. An independent State:

Has space or territory which has internationally recognized boundaries (boundary disputes are OK)."

You said:

No native speaker of English would read "over Japan itself" as including "only over waters under the jurisdiction of Japan."

Click to expand...

Actually, Japanese Territority includes BOTH land and water, and refering to the country of Japan also encompasses BOTH.

Frankly, you are nitpicking on a small detail to obfuscate a much larger error that I pointed out, and which was my main issue with your post. The error is that China fired missiles OVER Japan/Japanese Territory, which is a flagrant violation of Japan's borders. You quietly changed it to NEAR, but refused to admit that error.

Also, by omiting the fact that the target was Taiwan, you are misleading others into believing that it is a direct threat targeting Japan. Since you admitted no mistake, then it was your intention to play up the China threat to back up your advocation of arms escalation.

You are apparently residing in Hong Kong, China, you (and some others here) are obviously well schooled in the current anti-Japanese propaganda of the Chinese government, and have apparently come over to this forum (which is devoted to people interested in Japan), for no reason other than to badmouth Japan and generally spread anti-Japanese propaganda, and to attack anyone like me who has the temerity to say anything in Japan's defense. And the English word for that type of creature is "troll."

Click to expand...

I will not stoop to the point of slandering as you do, first accusing me without any backup evidence of deception and now with accusations of "spreading anti-Japanese propaganda".


Again, I ask you to PLEASE provide EVIDENCE that I am "well-schooled" in Chinese propaganda, and am posting anti-Japan propaganda, or ****. I find this a very nasty, ugly and dirty accusation, as I pride myself on always providing links of credible sources to backup everything I post. By quoting Ishihara, am I "spreading anti-Japan" propaganda?

Many of us, including Maciamo himself, and many Japanese are concerned about the unresolved WWII issues. I am providing the perspective of the Chinese residing in HK, other posters from a Korean perspective, etc., and we have a healthy discourse here which helps to debunk many damaging myths, eg. that the Chinese are "manipulated" by their govt. to feel "hatred" for Japan, which is misleading and obviously detrimental to understanding when the Chinese feelings are PERSONAL, from their own familial history of suffering.

The purpose for this is to get down to the very bottom of the issues, so that awareness may be raised about the very real problems of distrust, animosity and their causes in order that they may be addressed. The truth needs to be told, so that a basic UNDERSTANDING can take place, the very first step to conflict resolution. The animosity towards Japan by the majority of Japan's neighbours is REAL, I didn't invent those polls. I am helping in whatever way I can to explain why, from my own experiences in HK, including critique of Japan's attitude, words and actions, and so are many, many others here. To close down the debate by falsely accusing us of "bad-mouthing" and "propaganda" is a McCarthyite tactic.

Unlike you, we all desire a peaceful conflict resolution, instead of the sabre-rattling you prefer. And unlike you, we don't engage in defamation and character assasination.

I am completely willing in debating ANY of your points without resorting to callng you an "anti-China war propagandist," despite you posting factually incorrect information. To quote your president, "bring it on", any facts/figures/information from any CREDIBLE non-partisan source to this discourse. Problem is, I haven't seen ANY of such from you, just plain ugly, personal insult and slander.

I approve Qwertyu's posts, that I think summarize well what many Chinese or Asians think of Japan.

Bramicus, no need to insult people because you disagree about their definition of "territory" or whatever.

qwertyu said:

Japanese Territority includes BOTH land and water

Click to expand...

Yes, but "over Japan itself" does not. That's just simple idiomatic English. It's unfortunate that you won't admit that, because you're obviously a native English speaker (if you're not, consider that a very large compliment; I've never seen a non-native English speaker write as well as you). It has not been I who have been "nitpicking" over this -- harping on it, but it's obvious we're not going to agree on this, and I agree with you that it's not worth arguing further.

qwertyu said:

The error is that China fired missiles OVER Japan/Japanese Territory, which is a flagrant violation of Japan's borders. You quietly changed it to NEAR, but refused to admit that error.

Click to expand...

Refused to admit the error? I think I've said it about three times already in my various posts above. In fact, I'm the first one who mentioned that I changed "over" to "near" -- right after Bossel's post in which he apparently suspected that my edit had been to change "Japan" to "Japanese territory" (it wasn't: "Japanese territory" was in the original version). But you've been too busy insisting that I was lying when I said I never wrote that China shot a missile "over Japan itself." I think it is possible for us to talk politely together, but only if you will please take care to stop misquoting me.

qwertyu said:

Also, by omiting the fact that the target was Taiwan, you are misleading others into believing that it is a direct threat targeting Japan.

Click to expand...

I didn't leave that out purposely, but you're right, it is a salient point that this was done during China's military exercises that were apparently conducted to threaten Taiwan. I was more concerned with whether Japan has a legitimate self-defense concern with what happened, and I think the fact that one or more missiles fell near Japanese shipping lanes (I hope that's accurate enough for you) is evidence of that. I did not mean to imply that I thought Japan was the direct target of China's actions, and I'm sorry if that's the impression that was given.

qwertyu said:

I ask you to PLEASE provide EVIDENCE that I am "well-schooled" in Chinese propaganda, and am posting anti-Japan propaganda, or ****.

Click to expand...

That's how it seemed to me, but I will be happy to be proven wrong. In fact, a post you left just today (elsewhere) makes me think that I was wrong in this. So I withdraw the supposition, and apologize for it.

You've made a number of other not-so-nice accusations and statements about me in the rest of your post above, but I won't comment on them. I hope from now on we can discuss things more civilly, and I apologize for any part I may have had in exacerbating the situation.

Maciamo said:

Bramicus, no need to insult people because you disagree about their definition of "territory" or whatever.

Click to expand...

I never criticized anyone else's definition of "territory." Most of the above "discussion" has concerned other people insulting me because they disagree about my definition of "over Japan itself" -- insisting over and over that by "over Japan itself" I couldn't have possibly meant "over the land areas of Japan proper" and therefore that I must've been purposely lying when I said "I never said over Japan itself" -- which I never did say. They continue to absolutely insist that "over Japan itself" must mean exactly the same thing as "over Japanese territory" and therefore I'm a liar. That's what's been going on.

It's been a virtual feeding frenzy in which I'm the only chum around, it seems.

Bramicus said:

bossel said:

You didn't say "over Japan itself", you said "over Japanese territory."

Click to expand...

Exactly! And they are different things. What you just said is exactly what I've been saying all along: I never said "over Japan itself" -- I said "over Japanese territory" which is different.

Exactly! And they are different things. What you just said is exactly what I've been saying all along: I never said "over Japan itself" -- I said "over Japanese territory" which is different. I think the missile didn't actually go over Japanese territory either, just near it, so I edited my post accordingly as Lexico told me I should do, but either way, I certainly never said "over Japan itself." Glad you agree with me.

Click to expand...

Nice that you again show your misleading intention (or that your native English is not as good as you seem to believe it is). I don't agree, as #2 clearly showed, where I said: "Even if that were true". I hope you know the meaning of conditional III.

What's your point? I can only write English according to its actual meaning

Click to expand...

But you obviously didn't, as can be seen by the M-W quote. Or do you think M-W's definition does not represent the actual meaning?

Bramicus said:

not according to how people who don't understand English well might misinterpret it.

Click to expand...

If someone who you'd consider a native speaker has obvious problems understanding your statement, perhaps, just perhaps, your interpretation is wrong?

Bossel, you're the one who is completely misunderstanding what is going on, let alone what I'm saying. No one is arguing about what "territory" means, but about what "over Japan itself" means in idiomatic English. And it's a pointless argument, anyway, just playing with semantics to try to prove I'm a liar. Also, you clearly just want to argue, to be antagonistic. This serves no purpose.

Here's the progression in a nutshell:

Bramicus: China shot missile over Japanese territoty.
Qwertyu: They never shot a missile over Japan.
Bramicus: I never said over Japan itself.
Qwertyu: Yes you did.
Bramicus: No, I said "over Japanese territory."
Qwertyu: That means the same as "over Japan itself" therefore you did say it!
Bramicus: It does not mean the same thing in idiomatic English.

Bossel: You didn't say "over Japan itself", you said "over Japanese territory." That shows your misleading intention! [Huh??!?!?!?!!!]

Sounds like kindergarten, doesn't it. How long do you and Qwertyu want to keep this up, Bossel?

Let's stop this ridiculous argument over the definition of "Japan itself", as I consider that it can be understood as "land only" or "land + territorial waters". The problem is more the definition of "itself". I understand that for Bramicus "Japan itself" means the land, while for Qwertyu it means the whole political entity, and thus territory.

I suggest you leave it there and burry the hatchet.

I'd be happy to. Thanks.