M3M3M3's past comments

  • 0

    M3M3M3

    @Strangerland

    The less people we push to terrorism, the less terrorists there will be.

    What a load of nonsense. What did the innocent victims of this attack do to push this man to terrorism? What did my neighbour who died in the 7/7 attacks do to push these people to plant bombs on trains? You've really outdone yourself today Strangerland.

    But people want someone to blame, so that they can feel secure. So they blame the Muslims for sharing a faith with the extremists

    You chastise people for holding the entire Muslim community responsible for reigning in their terrorists, but at the same time you have no hesitation to hold everyone living in the west responsible for civilian drone deaths. Do you really not see your own hypocrisy?

    Posted in: British ex-con, 52, carried out Westminster attack; IS claims responsibility

  • 14

    M3M3M3

    I don't really see a problem with the name. It's a centuries old naval tradition in most countries to keep recycling old ship names. The Japanese are just honouring that. The Royal Navy has commissioned countless ships named Enterprise, Invincible, Victory, etc (all involved in dubious missions at some point in history). It's also worth remembering that when the original Kaga was built after WW1, Japan was still a western ally and hadn't yet started down the road to military dictatorship.

    Posted in: Japan's 2nd big helicopter carrier enters service

  • 2

    M3M3M3

    @CH3CHO

    Targeting civilians is a war crime. See Geneva Convention and the Hague Convention.

    The Geneva convention protecting civilians was signed after the war, and Protocol I dealing with aerial bombardment and atomic weapons was only signed in 1977. Both are irrelevant in the context of the WW2. So let's have a look at the Hague Conventions of 1907 which codified the relevant international law in force at the time.

    Article 25 of the Annex to both Hague Conventions (1899 and 1907) state the rules of war as being:

    The attack or bombardment of towns, villages, habitations or buildings which are not defended, is prohibited.

    The question is therefore whether Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki and others were defended towns. The answer is probably yes, meaning bombing them was not prohibited. The basic principle of international sovereignty and the interpretation of international law is that whatever is not explicitly prohibited is allowed.

    Of course, you can credibly argue that targeting of civilian towns through aerial bombardment was always morally wrong and should have been made a war crime under international law (The League of Nations in 1938 thought is should be made a war crime), but the reality was that it wasn't a war crime as strictly defined by the conventions in force at the time. No Americans were ever prosecuted, and there is no sense within the credible corners of the international legal community that America escaped justice. It is what it is, or more correctly, it was what it was.

    Posted in: B-25 bombers to fly over Ohio to honor historic air raid on Japan

  • -1

    M3M3M3

    I didn't misleadingly crop your comment @asdfgtr. I wasn't actually responding to you. I was replying to @utorsa.

    As far as the sentence goes, I don't see how I've take you out of context in a misleading way. The damage was suffered by civilians, you seem to think targeting civilians was a war crime, you cite Scott in his description of damage suffered by civilians. If you think there was a war crime, I'd be interested to hear what you think it was.

    Posted in: B-25 bombers to fly over Ohio to honor historic air raid on Japan

  • -1

    M3M3M3

    @utorsa

    I`m merely quoting former Nieman Fellow at Harvard, James M. Scott. Mr. Scott is the author of Target Tokyo

    You said it was a war crime, but those are your words, not a quote from the James M. Scott's article. Regardless of what the legal position is today after additional treaties and protocols, neither the American bombing raids or the dropping of the atomic bombs would have constituted war crimes in 1945. Indiscriminate aerial bombardment of cities was allowed under international law at the time. The only restriction was that you could not target cities that were completely undefended. The law reflected the fact that in an age of dumb bombs, all a pilot could do is press the release button from a few thousand feet and hope the bomb landed on something resembling a target. In fact, the League of Nations did actually pass a resolution in 1938 condemning aerial bombardment of civilians and calling for new regulations to be drawn up. This was partly in response to Japanese bombing of Chinese cities. No regulations were ever drawn up until after the war had ended.

    Posted in: B-25 bombers to fly over Ohio to honor historic air raid on Japan

  • 1

    M3M3M3

    I doubt there would be any appetite to commemorate the Dresden bombings

    Perhaps not in Britain, but people in Dresden do appear to commemorate the bombing of their own city. It's quite a contrast to the sort of creeping revisionism we see when it comes to Japan.

    Over a thousand people took part in an organized walk to recall the perpetrators of Nazi crimes and the places where those crimes took place in Dresden. The group "Nazi-free Dresden", which put on the event, said the idea was to point out that the city was "part of the Nazi system and not its victim."

    http://www.dw.com/en/dresden-commemorates-world-war-ii-bombing-anniversary/a-15740338

    Posted in: B-25 bombers to fly over Ohio to honor historic air raid on Japan

  • 9

    M3M3M3

    I for one do honor the brave young men who risked their lives, and many who lost their lives, bombing Japan into submission. The fact that civilian casualties are always horrible doesn't take away from the fact that what they did was necessary. At some point, civilians who refuse to control their own government become the authors of their own misfortune. Recently there's a tendency for some people to try to paint Japan in a more benign light 70 years after the war, but this is ridiculous and entirely ahistorical. I wonder how many of them would like to go back to that human soul crushing military dictatorship if they had a time machine. By the way, I'm not America (or Japanese).

    Posted in: B-25 bombers to fly over Ohio to honor historic air raid on Japan

  • -1

    M3M3M3

    My son was never a terrorist. He never attended prayer. He drank. But under the effects of alcohol and cannabis, this is where one ends up,

    He wasn't a terrorist, but he is now. He also had a long criminal record. He sounds like many other terrorists who try to lead a secular life, it becomes a bit of a mess, and then he wanted to do something to atone for his sins. In Islam, the one way to wipe the slate clean and guarantee your entry to paradise is to die a martyr in the cause of Allah (Quran 61,10-12, 4,74) . This is why the 9/11 hijackers went to bars and strip clubs before their mission. Everything would be forgiven once they became martyrs. It's terrifying to have this ideology within our communities. It's like a ticking time bomb.

    Posted in: Autopsy to determine if Paris airport attacker was drunk or high

  • -1

    M3M3M3

    How reliable and effective is NATO? It's never really been put to the test. If Russia were to invade part of Turkey, are we seriously supposed to believe that America and every other NATO member would immediately declare war on Russia and start dropping bombs on Russian soldiers? If you believe that, I think you are pretty naive. It's more likely that NATO would fold like a cheap deck chair and spend years trying diplomatic and economic sanctions before they lifted a finger.

    NATO has always been a bit of a bluff. A place where boys can show off their new toys in joint excercises every few years. In a 21st century global economy, coordinated economic sanctions are far more effective than military action. An alliance that had the power to impose a complete asset freeze and ban on imports and exports from an entire country would be more powerful than any army known to man. Of course, withdrawal from the WTO would probably be a necessary to making such an economic alliance possible.

    Posted in: Trump says U.S. must be paid more to defend Germany

  • 0

    M3M3M3

    They've completely destroyed their own country over the past 6 years. I wonder if they think it was worth it? If your rebellion doesn't have enough support to decisively topple the government with 1 month, you should just call it quits for the sake of the civilian population that just wants to get on with their lives.

    Posted in: Syrian rebels begin evacuation from besieged Homs

  • 3

    M3M3M3

    A 30ft border fence is a crazy idea. Especially when you realise just how rare physical borders between countries are around the world. There is an image here showing all the border fences currently in existence. I suspect people will be surprised to see just how few there are:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_barrier

    That said, the real problem in America is not that illegal immigrants are able to scale a border fence. It's that once they make it over, they are able to live and work with relative ease. The lack of a universal healthcare system means that being uninsured is not a cause for suspicion, nobody is legally required to carry ID so even encounters with the police will usually see them set free, they can get a drivers licence which is not linked to their immigration staus, their American born children become automatic citizens meaning that schools never need to enquire about the parents' legal status, the children can later sponsor the parents as caretakers, their employers rarely face fines for hiring them and when they do the fines are much smaller than in other countries, the cities they live in refuse to cooperate with the federal government to identify and deport them, and millions of citizens don't even see their actions as being blameworthy.

    Posted in: Trump wants to build 30-foot-high wall at Mexican border

  • -4

    M3M3M3

    If Angela Merkel hadn't bungled the 2015-2016 migrant crisis so horribly, it's likely that we would not be facing Brexit and that Donald Trump would not be president. Just remember how narrow the margins were in both of these votes.

    The images of migrants and refugees tearing down fences, setting fires, and throwing rocks at police in their desperate attempt to reach Germany was undoubtedly what tipped the balance in populism's favour. People were rightly horrified to see the authorities completely lose control in such a dramatic fashion. Unfortunately many of them seemed to think voting for the extreme right was the only way to get it back.

    It's important that we be honest and recognise exactly how and why we arrived at our current populist dystopia so that we can avoid ever returning here in the future.

    Posted in: Trump, Merkel try to sidestep differences in first meeting

  • -3

    M3M3M3

    @Crazyjoe

    She is full of compassion and you have not a drop of it in your body. You owe her an apology for suggesting that you resemble her in any form.

    Compassion is admirable as long as its entirely your own. If your accountant were to donate all of your money on charity without ever asking your permission, should I praise his compassion? Trump and Merkel appear to be worlds apart but they are just opposite sides of the same authoritarian coin. One acts like a dictator for 'good', the other for 'bad'. Both are equally toxic, loathsome and a danger to democracy.

    Posted in: Trump, Merkel try to sidestep differences in first meeting

  • 0

    M3M3M3

    People who are underweight are just as much at risk of those carrying too much weight. If ignored, locomotive syndrome could eventually mean a need for constant nursing care—bad news in a rapidly aging society with record longevity.

    Never heard of this condition so I had to look it up. Surprisingly, it doesn't have an English Wikipedia entry, only a Japanese one. A Google seach reveals about 5 academic papers on the condition, all written by Japanese apart from one Brazilian. I also found a Japanese pharmaceutical company warning us about it. Apparently, it was the Japanese Orthopedic Association which coined the name. No doubt that failing to excercise is less than ideal, but I'm left to seriously wonder whether 'Locomotive syndrome' or 'LS' (sounds terrifying) is a real thing.

    Posted in: Where super-thin is still in: Attitudes to body image in Japan

  • 3

    M3M3M3

    Are people still interested in cars? It seems like they've become a bit passé as people's hobbies and interests have moved on. Maybe they should have painted the back of a tablet or smartphone instead. Or even a smart refrigerator.

    Posted in: Vroom, vroom

  • 3

    M3M3M3

    If we change to 'double' and it is widely used by the same people who currently use 'half' in a derogatory manner, I think we end up with the same problem. We would constantly need to invent new terms once as quickly as the old ones are deemed to be offensive.

    A striking example of this linguistic arms race is the group that I'm actually reluctant to name because I have no idea what to call them anymore. Within just the past 100 years they have been called (and I genuinely don't wish to offend anyone): morons, dumb, slow, re-tarded, mentally re-tarded, mentally handicapped, learning disabled, mentally challenged, intellectually challenged, special needs, and so on. All of these terms were considered entirely neutral at one point but most fell out of favour when they were abused and then deemed offensive (most within my own lifetime, and probably yours too).

    In my opinion the problem is not language, it's the people who use the language that we should focus on changing

    Posted in: Two halves of a whole: Japan’s habitual ‘labeling’ of bicultural kids

  • -1

    M3M3M3

    The ruling is here for anyone interested in reading it. You can skip the first 27 pages which deal with standing and other formalities. The relevant part starts at the bottom of page 28.

    http://www.hid.uscourts.gov/files/announcement142/CV17-50%20219%20doc.pdf

    Page 30 is probably the most interesting. The Judge dismisses the government's claim that the order does not specifically target Islam because the affected countries make up only 9% of the global Muslim population. The judge cites authority saying that targeting a religion is not purely a mathematical excercise:

    The illogic of the Government’s contentions is palpable. The notion that one can demonstrate animus toward any group of people only by targeting all of them at once is fundamentally flawed. The Court declines to relegate its Establishment Clause analysis to a purely mathematical exercise..."the Supreme Court has never reduced its Establishment Clause jurisprudence to a mathematical exercise. It is a discriminatory purpose that matters, no matter how inefficient the execution"

    The critical part of the ruling is found on page 31 where the judge sets out the test for exactly how he has determined that a particular religion is being targeted:

    Equally flawed is the notion that the Executive Order cannot be found to have targeted Islam because it applies to all individuals in the six referenced countries. It is undisputed, using the primary source upon which the Government itself relies, that these six countries have overwhelmingly Muslim populations that range from 90.7% to 99.8%. It would therefore be no paradigmatic leap to conclude that targeting these countries likewise targets Islam. Certainly, it would be inappropriate to conclude, as the Government does, that it does not.

    As we can see, a mathematical excercise cannot be raised as a defence to targeting a specific religion, but a mathematical excercise can be used to prove that you are. If you find that incredibly inconsistent, you are not alone.

    Posted in: Federal judge in Hawaii puts Trump travel ban on hold

  • -2

    M3M3M3

    @albaleo

    He seems to be saying that it's not enough just to paper over the flaws in the previous order.

    I agree that the first executive order clearly violated the establishment clause by giving preferential treatment to religious minorities, but did the second order merely paper over this? The second executive order completely adandoned it. Trump realised how illegal his first order was and he replaced it with another order, a fundamentally different order. Yet, the judge still wasn't satisfied. Why? Because Trump is just a bad guy, and something he said on AC360 when he was a private citizen?

    As president, Trump clearly has wide ranging powers to prevent non-citizens from some of the world's most dangerous countries entering the US. The question I have is what would a legal order look like assuming the previous ones are illegal? How would that executive order have to be worded in order to make all of Trumps prior comments irrelevant? If we can't answer this question with some degree of certainty, we have a problem. Unfortunately, the judge did not answer this and he wasn't required to do so. That said, the courts in America seem to be horribly politicised on both sides. It's amazing how so few decisions are unanimous and how the judges are always in agreement with the other judges appointed by the same president.

    Posted in: Federal judge in Hawaii puts Trump travel ban on hold

  • -1

    M3M3M3

    I always thought the most compelling arguments in favour of Brexit were a.) the EU was incapable of change and reform, and b.) the EU had transformed into something very different over the past 40 years. Of course, logic prevents both from being true but that never seemed to bother the Brexiteers who would repeat both in a single breath.

    Article 50 was added as an afterthought in the mistaken belief that no member state would even consider leaving

    That was also my first thought when I read the headline. To call it a 'road' out of the EU makes it sound overly optimistic and rather comfortable. Maybe 'plotting a trajectory' or 'or charting a course' would capture the lack of control and uncertainty a bit better.

    It was interesting to see David Davis admit (or at least sort of admit) that the government hasn't undertaken any official assessment since the referendum of what the impact of no deal with the EU would be. I suspect this is another lie and they have done an assessment. It's undoubtedly a disaster (just as the economists predicted). But I guess sometimes it's better to look incompetent if the alternative is looking suicidal.

    Posted in: Brexit explained: What's next on the UK's road out of the EU

  • -7

    M3M3M3

    I'm not a Trumpster or even an American but I read the entire ruling today simply out of interest, and I have to say that it does seem to be a judicial overreach in my opinion.

    For those who haven't read it, the judge freely admitted that the text of the order was drafted in an entirely non-discriminatory manner (because it targets people of all religions who come from the selected countries), but he thought it should be frozen simply because Trump had spoken about his desire to ban Muslims during the campaign and that this suggested the order was motivated by religious animus. The ruling even went as far as including excerpts of campaign interviews on CNN's Anderson Cooper 360.

    Clearly, the judiciary's proper role is to judge the law. They cannot start judging the mind of the lawmaker. For example, modern laws against polygamy are undoubtedly motivated by religion even though the Constitution abhors this. Unfortunately, you cannot challenge them in court by saying that the lawmakers who passed them were Christians and even publicly stated that they were motivated by a desire to favour Christianity through the excercise of state power. A valid law is a valid law regardless of what was going on in the lawmakers mind. The courts rarely look 'behind the veil' as it's called. This is something which is left for the other branches of government to deal with. The judge in this case was at pains to point out this basic principle because he knew he was sailing very close to the wind, but in my opinion he didn't clearly explain how what he was doing was any different to what he said he should never do.

    If an otherwise legal and non-discriminatory executive order can be struck down simply because a President has displayed some animosity to a particular group in the past, I think it's very dangerous for democracy. Future candidates may simply refuse to discuss controversial topics that will become the subject of future laws or executive orders. The logical outcome of this ruling is that the judiciary may never allow Donald Trump to pass any executive order that deals with Muslims, even tangentially, simply because of his past comments. It's an untenable situation considering the actual scope of executive power that the the US constitution gives the President.

    I'm sure I won't be the most popular person on JT for saying this. However, I think now more than ever America should fall back on the rule of law and demand that Congress does its job. Having Obama era judges trying to impede Trump by dubious legal means is just going to give him more oxygen for his rallies.

    “Whatever we, as individuals, may feel about the president or the executive order, the president’s decision was well within the powers of the presidency,” Judge Jay Bybee wrote for the five.

    Unfortunately, this other judge is likely to be vindicated once this gets to the Supreme court.

    Posted in: Federal judge in Hawaii puts Trump travel ban on hold

Work
in Japan

Search the Largest English Job Board in Japan.

Find a Job Now!

View all

Time
to Buy
in Japan

Find the perfect home today!

Search