• Best of luck to the class of 2024 for their HSC exams. You got this!
    Let us know your thoughts on the HSC exams here
  • YOU can help the next generation of students in the community!
    Share your trial papers and notes on our Notes & Resources page
MedVision ad

[Chinese, Korean United] World Wide Appeal!!! (1 Viewer)

paper cup

pamplemousse
Joined
Apr 24, 2004
Messages
2,590
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
Rorix said:
Are you familiar with the meaning of the term annex?



Evidentally you are not. For land to be annexed, there must be an existing state into which it is added. The creation of the country of Australia cannot, by definition, annex any land.



edit: sup cherry
you know the answer to that ;)
 

paper cup

pamplemousse
Joined
Apr 24, 2004
Messages
2,590
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
aww this is terrible

rorix has fallen out of love with me it seems :(:(:(:(:(:(:(
 

lawforever

Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2003
Messages
219
Gender
Male
HSC
2003
You're right, we in the west go to other countries to kill peaceful civilians, who aren't even protesting I might add
lol

"Don't do unto others what you don't want others do unto you" :rolleyes:


i think the argument starts with the territory issue of china, with someone insisting that history is shit and DiaoYu island (I wouldn't even call it senkaku island) should belong to japan etc etc.
 

Benny_

Elementary Penguin
Joined
Oct 8, 2003
Messages
2,261
Location
Wollongong
Gender
Male
HSC
2003
Rorix said:
You're by far the worst troll I've ever seen. I don't even feel compelled to respond.
Yet you can't help yourself anyway, with a flame no less.

What makes a statement like "in the West we don't mow down peaceful protesters with tanks" any more creditable than "we in the west kill civilians in other countries"? It's every bit as out of context.

Don't get me wrong here, I will never defend the Chinese government on Tiananmen Square, I'm just tired of people using it so casually everytime they want to poke the finger at China. It's just not that simple an issue.
 

Rorix

Active Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2003
Messages
1,818
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
lawforever said:
i think the argument starts with the territory issue of china, with someone insisting that history is shit and DiaoYu island (I wouldn't even call it senkaku island) should belong to japan etc etc.

In a testimonial in 1920 a diplomat from the Chinese Beiyang warlord government once admitted that the islands belonged to the Yaeyama District of Okinawa Prefecture.


Your claim is based on a treaty which makes no mention of the islands in question.

The treaty means what it says, or more precisely, does not mean what it does not say.
 

Rorix

Active Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2003
Messages
1,818
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
jim_green said:
What makes a statement like "in the West we don't mow down peaceful protesters with tanks" any more creditable than "we in the west kill civilians in other countries"? It's every bit as out of context.


So I take it you object to the use of nuclear weapons on Japan?



Or is your racial hatred of the Japanese strong enough to overcome your moral qualms?
 

neo o

it's coming to me...
Joined
Aug 16, 2002
Messages
3,294
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
lawforever said:
lol

"Don't do unto others what you don't want others do unto you" :rolleyes:


i think the argument starts with the territory issue of china, with someone insisting that history is shit and DiaoYu island (I wouldn't even call it senkaku island) should belong to japan etc etc.
No, this argument started because you went off on a tangent to cover up the fact that you're argument was shown to be complete bullshit. To quote myself again.

neo_o said:
The entire Chinese argument for claim over the islands is that they 'claim' that the islands were ceded to Japan with Taiwan in 1895, though there was no mention of them, and that they should have been returned along with Taiwan to China under later treaties, though again there was no mention of them.

CHINA IS LAYING CLAIM TO LAND IT NEVER OCCUPIED, AND IS CLAIMING SAID LAND UNDER TREATIES THAT NEVER MENTION THE LAND. WOW.

Japan has a history of controlling the islands since 1895. Assuming though that it was somehow significant that China controlled the islands in the Ming dynasty (a stupid claim which I do not conceed) I challenge you to provide proof that they were occupied.
 

Not-That-Bright

Andrew Quah
Joined
Oct 19, 2003
Messages
12,176
Location
Sydney, Australia.
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
jm1234567890 said:
your an idiot, untill they say sorry, they have learnt shit
We can play the 'blame' game forever :rolleyes:

Ur country won't appologise for this!
Yeah well u won't do this!
You won't do that!

Should I compile a list of attrocities i believe the chinese government should appologise for?
 

LMF^^

(m==)m
Joined
Jan 24, 2004
Messages
3,779
Location
Stretford End
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Rorix said:
So I take it you object to the use of nuclear weapons on Japan?



Or is your racial hatred of the Japanese strong enough to overcome your moral qualms?
Japan deserved thoze bombz.
Can't blame anyone fo that other than themselvez.
 

LMF^^

(m==)m
Joined
Jan 24, 2004
Messages
3,779
Location
Stretford End
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Not-That-Bright said:
We can play the 'blame' game forever :rolleyes:

Ur country won't appologise for this!
Yeah well u won't do this!
You won't do that!

Should I compile a list of attrocities i believe the chinese government should appologise for?
Most ppl won't understand the sensitivitiez of the situation. Yez you may say the hatred entrenched on the Chinese ppl are propaganda by the Chinese government, but itz true that the Japanese did some very horrific thingz to China, and on a large scale also.
Also they look upon themselvez az bein the superior, and we all hate big-headed dickheadz.

Just like some Jewz are still very sensitive about Germanz.
 

Not-That-Bright

Andrew Quah
Joined
Oct 19, 2003
Messages
12,176
Location
Sydney, Australia.
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
I have a big moral issue with what america did when they dropped those bombs...

1 - Sure alot of allied troops may have died, but the number would be closer to 100,000 than 1,000,000 AND
2 - They probably could have saved alot of troops lives if they went into a german town, and killed 200,000 men, women and children, if you support what happened on japan, then you also support that style of action.
 

lawforever

Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2003
Messages
219
Gender
Male
HSC
2003
Rorix said:
In a testimonial in 1920 a diplomat from the Chinese Beiyang warlord government once admitted that the islands belonged to the Yaeyama District of Okinawa Prefecture.


Your claim is based on a treaty which makes no mention of the islands in question.

The treaty means what it says, or more precisely, does not mean what it does not say.
Plz take a read on this (if you can read chinese)
http://forum.mil.sina.com.cn/cgi-bin/viewone.cgi?gid=71&fid=5368&itemid=514


Diaoyu island was found by china at the year 1520 since ming dynasty

Japanese took it in 1895 during their invasion. But it doesn't change the fact that diaoyu was originally an island of china

And finally, chinese had never approved the agreement that the control of Diaoyu island was given to japan after ww2
 

LMF^^

(m==)m
Joined
Jan 24, 2004
Messages
3,779
Location
Stretford End
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Not-That-Bright said:
2 - They probably could have saved alot of troops lives if they went into a german town, and killed 200,000 men, women and children, if you support what happened on japan, then you also support that style of action.
I don't support it, I'm just sayin they deserved it, becauz thatz what they did, raped and killed women and children.
 

Benny_

Elementary Penguin
Joined
Oct 8, 2003
Messages
2,261
Location
Wollongong
Gender
Male
HSC
2003
Rorix said:
So I take it you object to the use of nuclear weapons on Japan?



Or is your racial hatred of the Japanese strong enough to overcome your moral qualms?
I don't see how this is relevant to what I was saying, but since you've brought it up, let me ask you why you think I bare racial hatred towards Japanese?

Surely you didn't derive that purely from the fact that I'm Chinese and don't believe in revisionism? :rolleyes:

Actually I happen to like Japanese culture, almost every aspect of Japanese culture and the few Japanese people I've met, I've liked. My beef with the Japanese is purely based on my frustration that they can't just forget their pride and formally recognise our shared history for what it is.

A couple of months ago, Jews became outraged when Prince Harry wore a Nazi uniform at a fancy dress party. The were insulted because in wearing that uniform, he displayed a lack of respect towards the suffering of the Jews at the hands of the Nazis in WWII. When the Japanese gloss over Nanking in their textbooks and honour those involved in the massacre at Nanking at their war memorial, Chinese feel the same way. It's insulting. It's a constant thorn in the Chinese's side.

Now as I said, I have no problem with Japanese in any way, but to let them have a permenant seat on UNSC is simply not productive when there still exists so much tension between 2 members.

For the record, of course I don't support the use of nuclear weapons on Japan. The ones who suffer from the are civilians afterall.

Also I find it insulting that you'd assume that I'm racist and condescend based on that assumption. Please cut the unnessary shite out.
 
Last edited:

lawforever

Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2003
Messages
219
Gender
Male
HSC
2003
and neo o, u better have a read 2. so u will know whose argument was shown completely garbage.

i dunno whether you are jap or chinese or other background, but i admire you for having so many creative points when arguing with us
 

neo o

it's coming to me...
Joined
Aug 16, 2002
Messages
3,294
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
lawforever said:
and neo o, u better have a read 2. so u will know whose argument was shown completely garbage.

i dunno whether you are jap or chinese or other background, but i admire you for having so many creative points when arguing with us
Dude, you just keep missing the point. Even If the Chinese controlled the land in 1400 (a point that I don't conceed), the issue at hand is whether they have a right to control it today and under the current treaties involving Taiwan (which China claims these islands under) there is no mention of these islands.

Read my posts, and all shall be made clear.

neo_o said:
2) Assuming that the islands were originally part of China, so what? Under your logic Mongolia has a claim over most of the PRC.
neo_o said:
1) The islands were never inhabited, the Chinese don't deny this.

2) Japan claimed them under terra nullius in 1895, since there were no signs of occupation.

3) The entire Chinese argument for claim over the islands is that they 'claim' that the islands were ceded to Japan with Taiwan in 1895, though there was no mention of them, and that they should have been returned along with Taiwan to China under later treaties, though again there was no mention of them.

CHINA IS LAYING CLAIM TO LAND IT NEVER OCCUPIED, AND IS CLAIMING SAID LAND UNDER TREATIES THAT NEVER MENTION THE LAND. WOW.

Japan has a history of controlling the islands since 1895. Assuming though that it was somehow significant that China controlled the islands in the Ming dynasty (a stupid claim which I do not conceed) I challenge you to provide proof that they were occupied.
 

Benny_

Elementary Penguin
Joined
Oct 8, 2003
Messages
2,261
Location
Wollongong
Gender
Male
HSC
2003
It'd take a lot of effort for me to read that article, so for now I have to agree with neo_o on the island. Ownership of an island 500 years ago really means ..nothing. The Ming Dynasty is not PRC in any case. Arguing that China owns Diaoyu is like arguing that the Italians own all of Europe and a good deal of North Africa because it was all under control of the Roman Empire. The Roman Empire doesn't exist anymore, and neither does the Ming Dynasty. China does, and so does Japan. I remind you that I say this because I haven't read that article, since it's rather long, and I'm rather slow at reading Chinese.
 

lawforever

Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2003
Messages
219
Gender
Male
HSC
2003
Let me give u an illustration
lands are just like properties. If a person owned a thing and no matter who robbed it and no matter how many years ago was when he had it. He is still the owner of that thing.

Similarly, if china controlled that island before, no matter how many countries had taken it away by means of millitary force or so-called treaties, no matter how many years it had passed, diaoyu island is still belonging to its original owner.
How would you feel if someone robbed your car and point to you with a gun, force you to sign a treaty saying the car belongs to him?



it z so laughable that someone is having logic such as "originally controlled by china, but now china doesn't have right to control the island anymore"

If you want to continue the argue with mongolia's case. I would say it was originally a part of china territory but chinese government had deliberately approved it to be an independent nation.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top