Eric Takabayashi <etakajp@yahoo.co.jp> wrote:
> mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:

>> So, how was the Nanking Massacre/Incident stopped?

> Irrelevant.

Sorry, but it is not.

On the one hand, we have members of the armed forces stopping, under
threat of death, other members of their own armed forces from continuing
a crime. They further seek justice to bring these people to trial.

On the other hand, we have members of the armed forces participating in
these crimes en masse, and the official reaction is to institute a
system of prostitution.

There is a significant difference, Mr Takabayashi, whether or not you
are too dense to see it.

>> > Do you recall the reaction (or should I say, lack of reaction)?
>>
>> If by "lack of reaction", you mean public outcry when the events came to
>> light, then yes I do.

> I mean how the men who risked their lives to stop the slaughter were also considered
> traitors and forgotten for 30 years,

Sorry, could you point out where they were considered traitors?

Now, I actually paid attention to the news at the time, and I assure you
they were NOT considered traitors.

However, you, in your wisdom gained by (seemingly) ignoring public
reaction, see the public as vilifying those who stopped the slaughter.

Odd.

>> I suspect you do not recall that, and having no recollection, are simply
>> incorrectly assuming there was no public reaction. In fact, it was a
>> HUGE story, dominating headlines for weeks.
>>
>> > Point?
>>
>> Right now, that you have no idea what you're ranting about.

> It is you who are talking about irrelevant matters.

No, it is I who points out that on one hand, there was a military out of
control of even military discipline, not to mention public scrutiny.

Tell me, Mr Takabayashi, if you do not understand a given phenomenon,
and will make no effort to do so, how do you expect to prevent that from
recurring?

Or is that also irrelevant to you?

>> Tell me, Mr Takabayashi, which Japanese soldiers put a stop the Nanking
>> killings? What public investigation into was performed? Who was
>> court-martialed?

> How is this relevant?

See above; it has been repeated enough that even you can be expected to
get it by now.

>> Right, because it is apparent you have no idea WHAT the reaction to My
>> Lai was.

> I am talking about what people think of the men.

Frankly, it appears you have no idea what they think of them, nor what
was thought of them.

>> Please keep your rants more coherent.
>>
>> >> And what did Japan do following Nanking?
>>
>> > More.
>>
>> Wrong;

> Japanese didn't commit further atrocities?

As stated below, the reaction was to formally institute a program which
caused even more damage.

>> they instituted the "comfort women" program. See, the Tokyo
>> government was concerned as well, but having no way (or will) to
>> discipline anyone in the field, they figured the problem was the lack of
>> "release" for their noble troops. Hence the program.
>>
>> > The US has not stopped, either.
>>
>> Sorry, you are way off here.

> The US is not committing abuses, even now, with Americans turning a blind eye?

Sorry, which abuse to which we are turning a blind eye?

>> That you don't know what you're talking about.

> No, the point is you favor your own country and its people and history, over others.

Sorry, no. The incidents are different, and the reaction of the public
to them are different.

> Not remarkable or unusual, or to be criticized in itself, but you, like Ernest,
> should at least be able to admit it.

So, Mr Schaal or myself has defended Abu Gahib or My Lai?

Sir, I am calling you a liar.

Mike