Korea erects "Comfort Woman" Statue in front of Japanese Embassy

[kps1]

It doesn't really matter what you or I think, it's simply what the treaty states. Location is not specified in the treaty, only that it is within the hosting country. It's fairly black and white if you look at the information. A statue of a comfort woman was built in front of the Japanese embassy. Why was it built? To discredit Japan and to demean their country for past war crimes, this is obvious since the people who helped resurrect the statue openly admitted to it. In this case it is fairly easy to say that the dignity, the respect and ethical treatment, of the the Japanese Embassy was impaired (damaged). Again do I agree with this? No, but I'm not sure how you could disagree with how this treaty could be used to support their case.

Dude, seriously.  Every single clause of article 22, the one you stated, starts with or specifically states that it has to do with the "premises of the mission" (which if you check article 1 means the building and property they (Japan) own directly around it: ie. everything "behind the fence", AKA where the statue ISN'T) and not, say any random possible location within the host country (Korea) as whole, which is what you are asserting.  Because what you're saying is that according to you, it doesn't matter where the threat to "dignity" is within Korea, if it exists then Korea has violated the treaty.   By this standard, any paper that mentions anything bad about Japan, any location that was destroyed during the occupation and has a plaque saying so, any pamphlet that mentions anything about that part of Korea's history, any single person in Korea who says anything bad in public about Japan, in say, Busan, or Jeju or Paju or wherever, and is not arrested or prevented from doing so by the Korean government, makes Korea in violation of treaty.  If your interpretation is correct that is.  In fact, if you are correct that location doesn't matter, then Korea has a treaty obligation to shut down waygook.org, and possibly even arrest and deport every single member, including you and me, for contributing to this site, because it can be reached from Korea, and most of it's posters are in Korea, and there have been one or two posts here that have insulted the dignity of Japan.  In this very thread even!  Which actually makes you an accomplice to treaty violation, if you're correct.

Or maybe your interpretation, along with Japan's, is not actually correct and this is just another crappy face-saving/Korea bashing attempt on behalf of Japan.

By the way, if you're looking for a country that's ACTUALLY violated the clause you're quoting, the country you want to look at is Iran, not Korea.  It's been in the news and everything; the UK's quite upset!

The "premises of the mission" are the buildings or parts of buildings and the land ancillary thereto, irrespective of ownership, used for the purposes of the mission including the residence of the head of the mission.

The statue is located in front of the embassy. Now that could be considered part of the premises of the mission since no account is taken for ownership.

[Peekay1982]

It doesn't really matter what you or I think, it's simply what the treaty states. Location is not specified in the treaty, only that it is within the hosting country. It's fairly black and white if you look at the information. A statue of a comfort woman was built in front of the Japanese embassy. Why was it built? To discredit Japan and to demean their country for past war crimes, this is obvious since the people who helped resurrect the statue openly admitted to it. In this case it is fairly easy to say that the dignity, the respect and ethical treatment, of the the Japanese Embassy was impaired (damaged). Again do I agree with this? No, but I'm not sure how you could disagree with how this treaty could be used to support their case.

Dude, seriously.  Every single clause of article 22, the one you stated, starts with or specifically states that it has to do with the "premises of the mission" (which if you check article 1 means the building and property they (Japan) own directly around it: ie. everything "behind the fence", AKA where the statue ISN'T) and not, say any random possible location within the host country (Korea) as whole, which is what you are asserting.  Because what you're saying is that according to you, it doesn't matter where the threat to "dignity" is within Korea, if it exists then Korea has violated the treaty.   By this standard, any paper that mentions anything bad about Japan, any location that was destroyed during the occupation and has a plaque saying so, any pamphlet that mentions anything about that part of Korea's history, any single person in Korea who says anything bad in public about Japan, in say, Busan, or Jeju or Paju or wherever, and is not arrested or prevented from doing so by the Korean government, makes Korea in violation of treaty.  If your interpretation is correct that is.  In fact, if you are correct that location doesn't matter, then Korea has a treaty obligation to shut down waygook.org, and possibly even arrest and deport every single member, including you and me, for contributing to this site, because it can be reached from Korea, and most of it's posters are in Korea, and there have been one or two posts here that have insulted the dignity of Japan.  In this very thread even!  Which actually makes you an accomplice to treaty violation, if you're correct.

Or maybe your interpretation, along with Japan's, is not actually correct and this is just another crappy face-saving/Korea bashing attempt on behalf of Japan.

By the way, if you're looking for a country that's ACTUALLY violated the clause you're quoting, the country you want to look at is Iran, not Korea.  It's been in the news and everything; the UK's quite upset!

The "premises of the mission" are the buildings or parts of buildings and the land ancillary thereto, irrespective of ownership, used for the purposes of the mission including the residence of the head of the mission.

The statue is located in front of the embassy. Now that could be considered part of the premises of the mission since no account is taken for ownership.

Regardless, I'd agree that the Japanese embassy's moaning is childish - pathetically so. Kind of like their stonewalling about the comfort women by harping on about the 1965 reparation treaty: "Korea signed the Treaty of Basic Relations in 1965 which absolved us of all future responsibility for war activities and associated reparations. We consider the matter closed." Despite the fact that the treaty was signed by a military dictator who had strong personal links to the wartime Japanese regime.

Seriously - f*** Japan when it comes to stuff like this. Trenchant, backwards, insensitive and arrogant. The "comfort women" (disgusting euphemism, really) have demonstrated with dignity and resilience and this statue is a fitting continuation. I remember about two years ago the Japanese government offered some of the rape victims their pension which they had collected as "government employees" during their enslavement. It hadn't been adjusted for inflation nor had interest been added so it was something like ₩1,100. The women it was offered to quite rightly refused it. Shameful, shameful stuff.

[jimmyeatworldwar]

It doesn't really matter what you or I think, it's simply what the treaty states. Location is not specified in the treaty, only that it is within the hosting country. It's fairly black and white if you look at the information. A statue of a comfort woman was built in front of the Japanese embassy. Why was it built? To discredit Japan and to demean their country for past war crimes, this is obvious since the people who helped resurrect the statue openly admitted to it. In this case it is fairly easy to say that the dignity, the respect and ethical treatment, of the the Japanese Embassy was impaired (damaged). Again do I agree with this? No, but I'm not sure how you could disagree with how this treaty could be used to support their case.

Dude, seriously.  Every single clause of article 22, the one you stated, starts with or specifically states that it has to do with the "premises of the mission" (which if you check article 1 means the building and property they (Japan) own directly around it: ie. everything "behind the fence", AKA where the statue ISN'T) and not, say any random possible location within the host country (Korea) as whole, which is what you are asserting.  Because what you're saying is that according to you, it doesn't matter where the threat to "dignity" is within Korea, if it exists then Korea has violated the treaty.   By this standard, any paper that mentions anything bad about Japan, any location that was destroyed during the occupation and has a plaque saying so, any pamphlet that mentions anything about that part of Korea's history, any single person in Korea who says anything bad in public about Japan, in say, Busan, or Jeju or Paju or wherever, and is not arrested or prevented from doing so by the Korean government, makes Korea in violation of treaty.  If your interpretation is correct that is.  In fact, if you are correct that location doesn't matter, then Korea has a treaty obligation to shut down waygook.org, and possibly even arrest and deport every single member, including you and me, for contributing to this site, because it can be reached from Korea, and most of it's posters are in Korea, and there have been one or two posts here that have insulted the dignity of Japan.  In this very thread even!  Which actually makes you an accomplice to treaty violation, if you're correct.

Or maybe your interpretation, along with Japan's, is not actually correct and this is just another crappy face-saving/Korea bashing attempt on behalf of Japan.

By the way, if you're looking for a country that's ACTUALLY violated the clause you're quoting, the country you want to look at is Iran, not Korea.  It's been in the news and everything; the UK's quite upset!

The "premises of the mission" are the buildings or parts of buildings and the land ancillary thereto, irrespective of ownership, used for the purposes of the mission including the residence of the head of the mission.

The statue is located in front of the embassy. Now that could be considered part of the premises of the mission since no account is taken for ownership.

Regardless, I'd agree that the Japanese embassy's moaning is childish - pathetically so. Kind of like their stonewalling about the comfort women by harping on about the 1965 reparation treaty: "Korea signed the Treaty of Basic Relations in 1965 which absolved us of all future responsibility for war activities and associated reparations. We consider the matter closed." Despite the fact that the treaty was signed by a military dictator who had strong personal links to the wartime Japanese regime.

Seriously - f*** Japan when it comes to stuff like this. Trenchant, backwards, insensitive and arrogant. The "comfort women" (disgusting euphemism, really) have demonstrated with dignity and resilience and this statue is a fitting continuation. I remember about two years ago the Japanese government offered some of the rape victims their pension which they had collected as "government employees" during their enslavement. It hadn't been adjusted for inflation nor had interest been added so it was something like ₩1,100. The women it was offered to quite rightly refused it. Shameful, shameful stuff.

Totally agree with this.
I like Sushi , I like the samurai stuff and I like the japanese people. But when it comes down to their history and how they deal with it,
they should be real shameful. I mean REAL REAL shameful.
brainwashing students to learn lies? really? can you believe that? and its the 21st century!
As a scottish, if britain or france changed their history books to justify their numerous invasions,
I would be extremely disgusted.

[Davox]

It doesn't really matter what you or I think, it's simply what the treaty states. Location is not specified in the treaty, only that it is within the hosting country. It's fairly black and white if you look at the information. A statue of a comfort woman was built in front of the Japanese embassy. Why was it built? To discredit Japan and to demean their country for past war crimes, this is obvious since the people who helped resurrect the statue openly admitted to it. In this case it is fairly easy to say that the dignity, the respect and ethical treatment, of the the Japanese Embassy was impaired (damaged). Again do I agree with this? No, but I'm not sure how you could disagree with how this treaty could be used to support their case.

Dude, seriously.  Every single clause of article 22, the one you stated, starts with or specifically states that it has to do with the "premises of the mission" (which if you check article 1 means the building and property they (Japan) own directly around it: ie. everything "behind the fence", AKA where the statue ISN'T) and not, say any random possible location within the host country (Korea) as whole, which is what you are asserting.  Because what you're saying is that according to you, it doesn't matter where the threat to "dignity" is within Korea, if it exists then Korea has violated the treaty.   By this standard, any paper that mentions anything bad about Japan, any location that was destroyed during the occupation and has a plaque saying so, any pamphlet that mentions anything about that part of Korea's history, any single person in Korea who says anything bad in public about Japan, in say, Busan, or Jeju or Paju or wherever, and is not arrested or prevented from doing so by the Korean government, makes Korea in violation of treaty.  If your interpretation is correct that is.  In fact, if you are correct that location doesn't matter, then Korea has a treaty obligation to shut down waygook.org, and possibly even arrest and deport every single member, including you and me, for contributing to this site, because it can be reached from Korea, and most of it's posters are in Korea, and there have been one or two posts here that have insulted the dignity of Japan.  In this very thread even!  Which actually makes you an accomplice to treaty violation, if you're correct.

Or maybe your interpretation, along with Japan's, is not actually correct and this is just another crappy face-saving/Korea bashing attempt on behalf of Japan.

By the way, if you're looking for a country that's ACTUALLY violated the clause you're quoting, the country you want to look at is Iran, not Korea.  It's been in the news and everything; the UK's quite upset!

The "premises of the mission" are the buildings or parts of buildings and the land ancillary thereto, irrespective of ownership, used for the purposes of the mission including the residence of the head of the mission.

The statue is located in front of the embassy. Now that could be considered part of the premises of the mission since no account is taken for ownership.

So your argument is that Japan has unilaterally, without permission or announcement, extended and expanded (well, conquered, really, because the premises are considered the territory of the country of the origin of the mission) the premises of their current mission beyond what it was pre-statue, just to claim that Korea is in violation of a treaty?  I had no idea countries could do this.  If you're correct and this is legal, Korea should expand their mission in Japan to include all of Japan.  Because you can apparently do that at a whim without the permission of the host country.  Then every Japanese person would be under Korean rule!

Or maybe, yet again, your interpretation, like Japans, is full of sh*t.

In fact, why are you even in this thread defending those who supported sex slavery?

[kps1]

It doesn't really matter what you or I think, it's simply what the treaty states. Location is not specified in the treaty, only that it is within the hosting country. It's fairly black and white if you look at the information. A statue of a comfort woman was built in front of the Japanese embassy. Why was it built? To discredit Japan and to demean their country for past war crimes, this is obvious since the people who helped resurrect the statue openly admitted to it. In this case it is fairly easy to say that the dignity, the respect and ethical treatment, of the the Japanese Embassy was impaired (damaged). Again do I agree with this? No, but I'm not sure how you could disagree with how this treaty could be used to support their case.

Dude, seriously.  Every single clause of article 22, the one you stated, starts with or specifically states that it has to do with the "premises of the mission" (which if you check article 1 means the building and property they (Japan) own directly around it: ie. everything "behind the fence", AKA where the statue ISN'T) and not, say any random possible location within the host country (Korea) as whole, which is what you are asserting.  Because what you're saying is that according to you, it doesn't matter where the threat to "dignity" is within Korea, if it exists then Korea has violated the treaty.   By this standard, any paper that mentions anything bad about Japan, any location that was destroyed during the occupation and has a plaque saying so, any pamphlet that mentions anything about that part of Korea's history, any single person in Korea who says anything bad in public about Japan, in say, Busan, or Jeju or Paju or wherever, and is not arrested or prevented from doing so by the Korean government, makes Korea in violation of treaty.  If your interpretation is correct that is.  In fact, if you are correct that location doesn't matter, then Korea has a treaty obligation to shut down waygook.org, and possibly even arrest and deport every single member, including you and me, for contributing to this site, because it can be reached from Korea, and most of it's posters are in Korea, and there have been one or two posts here that have insulted the dignity of Japan.  In this very thread even!  Which actually makes you an accomplice to treaty violation, if you're correct.

Or maybe your interpretation, along with Japan's, is not actually correct and this is just another crappy face-saving/Korea bashing attempt on behalf of Japan.

By the way, if you're looking for a country that's ACTUALLY violated the clause you're quoting, the country you want to look at is Iran, not Korea.  It's been in the news and everything; the UK's quite upset!

The "premises of the mission" are the buildings or parts of buildings and the land ancillary thereto, irrespective of ownership, used for the purposes of the mission including the residence of the head of the mission.

The statue is located in front of the embassy. Now that could be considered part of the premises of the mission since no account is taken for ownership.

So your argument is that Japan has unilaterally, without permission or announcement, extended and expanded (well, conquered, really, because the premises are considered the territory of the country of the origin of the mission) the premises of their current mission beyond what it was pre-statue, just to claim that Korea is in violation of a treaty?  I had no idea countries could do this.  If you're correct and this is legal, Korea should expand their mission in Japan to include all of Japan.  Because you can apparently do that at a whim without the permission of the host country.  Then every Japanese person would be under Korean rule!

Or maybe, yet again, your interpretation, like Japans, is full of sh*t.

In fact, why are you even in this thread defending those who supported sex slavery?

Not defending it man. Just trying to explain Japan's reasoning behind the issue.  In no way do my comments advocate supporting sex slavery. You're nuts.

[kps1]

Hey if this stuff got you guys fired up. Check out some of Korea bashing comments on this site. http://www.japanprobe.com/2011/12/18/prime-minister-noda-comfort-women-issue-already-resolved/#disqus_thread

[Davox]

Not defending it man. Just trying to explain Japan's reasoning behind the issue.  In no way do my comments advocate supporting sex slavery. You're nuts.

I'm just pointing out the actual consequences of your interpretation/support of Japan's position: both the ludicrous legal consequences if they were actually correct (any country can claim whole other countries as part of their embassy) and the moral ones (Japan gets to claim that it's not actual sex slavery if Japanese soldiers were the ones doing the raping).

I understand that, as crazy as it is, Japan is actually claiming these things.  So does everyone else in this thread.  I also understand that their arguments are total BS, and that only Japan-must-always-be-correct nationalists and/or people ignorant of the events in question would actually support Japan's version of events in this one instance.  So which are you?

[Peekay1982]

Hey if this stuff got you guys fired up. Check out some of Korea bashing comments on this site. http://www.japanprobe.com/2011/12/18/prime-minister-noda-comfort-women-issue-already-resolved/#disqus_thread

One of the most stomach-churning things I've come across is westerners who pick up anti-Korean racism during their time in Japan. The Japanese are autistic nerds who are lied to in school by an utterly racist establishment: it's kind of understandable that they pick up the attitudes they do. But when dorky white dudes start espousing the same attitudes simply because they want to fit in (with people who will never truly accept them) it's despicable.

[kps1]

Not defending it man. Just trying to explain Japan's reasoning behind the issue.  In no way do my comments advocate supporting sex slavery. You're nuts.

I'm just pointing out the actual consequences of your interpretation/support of Japan's position: both the ludicrous legal consequences if they were actually correct (any country can claim whole other countries as part of their embassy) and the moral ones (Japan gets to claim that it's not actual sex slavery if Japanese soldiers were the ones doing the raping).

I understand that, as crazy as it is, Japan is actually claiming these things.  So does everyone else in this thread.  I also understand that their arguments are total BS, and that only Japan-must-always-be-correct nationalists and/or people ignorant of the events in question would actually support Japan's version of events in this one instance.  So which are you?

Which am I? So I'm either Japan is always correct or ignorant of events?Man you got some nerve.
The answer is I'm neither of those. Japan has committed some pretty heinous acts in the past, we all know this. However do I think it is appropriate to erect a statue in front of the Japanese embassy, as a reminder or what we already know to be true. Not at all. Why? Because it only creates racism and hate and that hatred trickles down to younger Korean generations. Japan has gone about this the entirely wrong way with their absurd claims over Dokdo, manipulation of history books and insincere apologies. But Korea has also made mistakes by teaching their children that it's basically OK to hate Japanese people. I don't think it's right in any case to ingrain children at a young age to be so blatantly racist towards another culture. Also, to claim that all Japanese people are bad, when a vast majority of Japanese youths have nothing to do with any of this or even hold an opinion on the matter is absurd.I went to university for one year in Japan and topics like Takeshima or Korea just never came up in conversation, except for when Kim Jong-il launched a rocket over Japan. While I've lived in Korea for two years and it's not unusual for a young Korean person to say flat out, " I hate Japanese people". I like both countries, but seriously Japan can't even hold a Prime Minister for more than six months at a time and South Korean officials hurl tear gas when they don't get their way. Both countries need some serious sit down time.

[kps1]

Hey if this stuff got you guys fired up. Check out some of Korea bashing comments on this site. http://www.japanprobe.com/2011/12/18/prime-minister-noda-comfort-women-issue-already-resolved/#disqus_thread

One of the most stomach-churning things I've come across is westerners who pick up anti-Korean racism during their time in Japan. The Japanese are autistic nerds who are lied to in school by an utterly racist establishment: it's kind of understandable that they pick up the attitudes they do. But when dorky white dudes start espousing the same attitudes simply because they want to fit in (with people who will never truly accept them) it's despicable.

Yeah I got banned from commenting on that site. Basically all the news posted about Korea or China on that blog are negative.

[jimmyeatworldwar]

Hey if this stuff got you guys fired up. Check out some of Korea bashing comments on this site. http://www.japanprobe.com/2011/12/18/prime-minister-noda-comfort-women-issue-already-resolved/#disqus_thread

One of the most stomach-churning things I've come across is westerners who pick up anti-Korean racism during their time in Japan. The Japanese are autistic nerds who are lied to in school by an utterly racist establishment: it's kind of understandable that they pick up the attitudes they do. But when dorky white dudes start espousing the same attitudes simply because they want to fit in (with people who will never truly accept them) it's despicable.

As foreigners living in Korea, regardless of whether we enjoy living here or not,
I think we have the small responsibility to shed light the correct historic background regarding these matters in case such other moronic westerners have wrong knowledge (brainwashed by Japanese lies).
It is the least we can do, as a civilized and educated westerner.

[Davox]

Not defending it man. Just trying to explain Japan's reasoning behind the issue.  In no way do my comments advocate supporting sex slavery. You're nuts.

I'm just pointing out the actual consequences of your interpretation/support of Japan's position: both the ludicrous legal consequences if they were actually correct (any country can claim whole other countries as part of their embassy) and the moral ones (Japan gets to claim that it's not actual sex slavery if Japanese soldiers were the ones doing the raping).

I understand that, as crazy as it is, Japan is actually claiming these things.  So does everyone else in this thread.  I also understand that their arguments are total BS, and that only Japan-must-always-be-correct nationalists and/or people ignorant of the events in question would actually support Japan's version of events in this one instance.  So which are you?

Which am I? So I'm either Japan is always correct or ignorant of events?Man you got some nerve.
The answer is I'm neither of those. Japan has committed some pretty heinous acts in the past, we all know this. However do I think it is appropriate to erect a statue in front of the Japanese embassy, as a reminder or what we already know to be true. Not at all. Why? Because it only creates racism and hate and that hatred trickles down to younger Korean generations. Japan has gone about this the entirely wrong way with their absurd claims over Dokdo, manipulation of history books and insincere apologies. But Korea has also made mistakes by teaching their children that it's basically OK to hate Japanese people. I don't think it's right in any case to ingrain children at a young age to be so blatantly racist towards another culture. Also, to claim that all Japanese people are bad, when a vast majority of Japanese youths have nothing to do with any of this or even hold an opinion on the matter is absurd.I went to university for one year in Japan and topics like Takeshima or Korea just never came up in conversation, except for when Kim Jong-il launched a rocket over Japan. While I've lived in Korea for two years and it's not unusual for a young Korean person to say flat out, " I hate Japanese people". I like both countries, but seriously Japan can't even hold a Prime Minister for more than six months at a time and South Korean officials hurl tear gas when they don't get their way. Both countries need some serious sit down time.

I didn't say that Japan was incorrect about every issue they might have with Korea nor did I bring up Dokdo.  I, and everyone else in this thread, has been talking about comfort women.  Because this is the thread about comfort women.  And on the comfort women issue (because this is the comfort women thread, remember) Japan is in the wrong, in every way.  And you are defending Japan on the comfort women issue, and arguing in favor of their viewpoint on the comfort women issue, all in this thread: the comfort women thread.  No one in this thread claimed that every Japanese person was bad, only that many of them, perhaps even the majority and certainly many of their politicians, seem to be taking a reprehensible stance on the one issue we're discussing here: comfort women.  No one here is claiming it's good to hate Japanese people, but I do think it's perfectly ok to hate certain opinions on certain issues, and one of the opinions I hate is the Japanese government's opinion on the comfort women issue.

I hope I'm being clear about my position here, because I think you've been misunderstanding what I've been trying to say for a while now.

[kps1]

Not defending it man. Just trying to explain Japan's reasoning behind the issue.  In no way do my comments advocate supporting sex slavery. You're nuts.

I'm just pointing out the actual consequences of your interpretation/support of Japan's position: both the ludicrous legal consequences if they were actually correct (any country can claim whole other countries as part of their embassy) and the moral ones (Japan gets to claim that it's not actual sex slavery if Japanese soldiers were the ones doing the raping).

I understand that, as crazy as it is, Japan is actually claiming these things.  So does everyone else in this thread.  I also understand that their arguments are total BS, and that only

Which am I? So I'm either Japan is always correct or ignorant of events?Man you got some nerve.
The answer is I'm neither of those. Japan has committed some pretty heinous acts in the past, we all know this. However do I think it is appropriate to erect a statue in front of the Japanese embassy, as a reminder or what we already know to be true. Not at all. Why? Because it only creates racism and hate and that hatred trickles down to younger Korean generations. Japan has gone about this the entirely wrong way with their absurd claims over Dokdo, manipulation of history books and insincere apologies. But Korea has also made mistakes by teaching their children that it's basically OK to hate Japanese people. I don't think it's right in any case to ingrain children at a young age to be so blatantly racist towards another culture. Also, to claim that all Japanese people are bad, when a vast majority of Japanese youths have nothing to do with any of this or even hold an opinion on the matter is absurd.I went to university for one year in Japan and topics like Takeshima or Korea just never came up in conversation, except for when Kim Jong-il launched a rocket over Japan. While I've lived in Korea for two years and it's not unusual for a young Korean person to say flat out, " I hate Japanese people". I like both countries, but seriously Japan can't even hold a Prime Minister for more than six months at a time and South Korean officials hurl tear gas when they don't get their way. Both countries need some serious sit down time.

I didn't say that Japan was incorrect about every issue they might have with Korea nor did I bring up Dokdo.  I, and everyone else in this thread, has been talking about comfort women.  Because this is the thread about comfort women.  And on the comfort women issue (because this is the comfort women thread, remember) Japan is in the wrong, in every way.  And you are defending Japan on the comfort women issue, and arguing in favor of their viewpoint on the comfort women issue, all in this thread: the comfort women thread.  No one in this thread claimed that every Japanese person was bad, only that many of them, perhaps even the majority and certainly many of their politicians, seem to be taking a reprehensible stance on the one issue we're discussing here: comfort women.  No one here is claiming it's good to hate Japanese people, but I do think it's perfectly ok to hate certain opinions on certain issues, and one of the opinions I hate is the Japanese government's opinion on the comfort women issue.

I hope I'm being clear about my position here, because I think you've been misunderstanding what I've been trying to say for a while now.

Dude I made this thread. You asked me where I stand on the Japan-must-always-be-correct nationalists and/or people ignorant of the events in question would actually support Japan's version of events in this one instance.  So which are you? I answered. Stop trying to say I support the comfort women issue, when all I'm doing is explaining why they can argue against having a statue outside of their embassy.

[Peekay1982]

Stop trying to say I support the comfort women issue, when all I'm doing is explaining why they can argue against having a statue outside of their embassy.

Yeah, fair enough. You're not supporting Japan, you're just saying why you think the statue is a bad idea. It's a bit unfair of Davox to keep painting you as supporting Japanese war crimes.

I agree that anti-Japanese sentiment here gets too much at times. But who is more at fault? Korea for not moving on or Japan for refusing to acknowledge that they did anything wrong? Not a question that can be easily answered. I still feel angry at my mum for getting my brother a SNES for Christmas 1993 (I got a pad of drawing paper and some Warhammer figures) so I can see why victims of Japanese war crimes have trouble letting go.

Personally I think the statue is an eloquent form of protest. Too often in diplomacy (particularly in Asia) "face" and not wanting to make waves lets those with enough cheek get away with stuff. Japan is clearly just waiting for them all to die.

[waldron1983]

I can surely understand why they did it. The Japanese were animalistic, beyond evil. They mirrored all that was unholy during the war and were vicious towards Chinese, Koreans, Filipinos. And they were siply sick and twisted in their heads. probably worse that the Germans.

Seeing and hearing old footage of that stuff...reinforces the fact that we did the right thing ending the war with Japan and dropping the 2 Nuclear Bombs. Im sure everyone here will disagree with that (BIG SUPRISE) but its true.

[Frozencat99]

Most people with any historical education would agree that the nuclear bombs prevented more wartime casualties from both fronts. That was how they were justified by US legal sanctions and by the President. It was quite clear that the Japanese would quite literally fight to the death should island invasions continue and that both forces would experience mass deaths, that the war would drag on, and there would be little to no positive return. It had very little to do with vanquishing any sort of evil power.

To put them on par with Nazi Germany is... well... while they certainly had more than their fair share of war crimes, the Holocaust is pretty much the focal point of the 20th Century. The Rape of Nanking and the comfort women of Korea are reprehensible displays of (a lack of) humanity but... the Holocaust.

[marchingocelot]

I can surely understand why they did it. The Japanese were animalistic, beyond evil. They mirrored all that was unholy during the war and were vicious towards Chinese, Koreans, Filipinos. And they were siply sick and twisted in their heads. probably worse that the Germans.

Seeing and hearing old footage of that stuff...reinforces the fact that we did the right thing ending the war with Japan and dropping the 2 Nuclear Bombs. Im sure everyone here will disagree with that (BIG SUPRISE) but its true.

Oh, you.

[kps1]

I can surely understand why they did it. The Japanese were animalistic, beyond evil. They mirrored all that was unholy during the war and were vicious towards Chinese, Koreans, Filipinos. And they were siply sick and twisted in their heads. probably worse that the Germans.

Seeing and hearing old footage of that stuff...reinforces the fact that we did the right thing ending the war with Japan and dropping the 2 Nuclear Bombs. Im sure everyone here will disagree with that (BIG SUPRISE) but its true.

Big surprise is that this guy's favorite part of the day is listening to Fox New's Radio.
Anyway.  On January 8th , a Chinese man visiting Korea on a travel Vista was arrested for throwing molotov cocktails at the Japanese Embassy in Seoul.  Apparently his grandmother had been a comfort woman . http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-5vj_Jp3gAQ

[jimmyeatworldwar]

I can surely understand why they did it. The Japanese were animalistic, beyond evil. They mirrored all that was unholy during the war and were vicious towards Chinese, Koreans, Filipinos. And they were siply sick and twisted in their heads. probably worse that the Germans.

Seeing and hearing old footage of that stuff...reinforces the fact that we did the right thing ending the war with Japan and dropping the 2 Nuclear Bombs. Im sure everyone here will disagree with that (BIG SUPRISE) but its true.

Big surprise is that this guy's favorite part of the day is listening to Fox New's Radio.
Anyway.  On January 8th , a Chinese man visiting Korea on a travel Vista was arrested for throwing molotov cocktails at the Japanese Embassy in Seoul.  Apparently his grandmother had been a comfort woman . http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-5vj_Jp3gAQ

hmm why the heck did the Chinese guy come to Korea to throw molotovs at the japanese embassy? he should've done it in China. Poor Koreans.

[Peekay1982]

I can surely understand why they did it. The Japanese were animalistic, beyond evil. They mirrored all that was unholy during the war and were vicious towards Chinese, Koreans, Filipinos. And they were siply sick and twisted in their heads. probably worse that the Germans.

Seeing and hearing old footage of that stuff...reinforces the fact that we did the right thing ending the war with Japan and dropping the 2 Nuclear Bombs. Im sure everyone here will disagree with that (BIG SUPRISE) but its true.

He'd just been to Japan where he set fire to the gate of the Yasukuni shrine (the war criminal memorial). The Korean police will obviously go much easier on him than the Japanese police would. Maybe he felt if he'd gone straight back to China and attacked the Japanese embassy there there wouldn't be as much publicity?

Big surprise is that this guy's favorite part of the day is listening to Fox New's Radio.
Anyway.  On January 8th , a Chinese man visiting Korea on a travel Vista was arrested for throwing molotov cocktails at the Japanese Embassy in Seoul.  Apparently his grandmother had been a comfort woman . http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-5vj_Jp3gAQ

hmm why the heck did the Chinese guy come to Korea to throw molotovs at the japanese embassy? he should've done it in China. Poor Koreans.