China's SCS Strategy Thread

Brumby

Brumby

Major
taxiya said:
To be honest, this between you and me has lasted for too long, I myself has lost paitient to continue wth you, here is why, just two examples from this post of yours. It shows how you miss-read, ignore my points and constantly drift issue away.


Examle 1

This is your question

So when did such news from an outlet in Kyoto become fabrication by Japan?

This is my texts that your question pointed at

it is a fabrication (of China's stance) on Kyoto News' part when it used


I did say that these News are not representing their states, did I.
Click to expand...


No because what you are referring to wasn’t the post in question. The post that I pointed out but which you have deliberately avoided in addressing and yet you want to emphasize the moral latitude that I am ignoring your points is post # 2751 below.


taxiya said:
The "China leaving UNCLOS" is a pure fabrication by Japan without any shred of credibility.
Click to expand...


Are you going to address your accusation that Japan fabricated the news? Can you please attribute it to a Japanese official – the standard that you yourself set or are you conveniently forgetting it?


taxiya said:
If you are not deliberately substitute my words with yours, then I suspect many of your argument with me were due to your miss-reading, miss-interpretation or simply ignored my contexts.


Example 2

Your words,

How can you be sure the conversation that was reported originally by the Kyoto news outlet is false?


You got it wrong in a simple logic. If someone make a statement, someone is responsible to prove it, that is why I am ure the Kyoto words is false utill proven otherwise. It can only be truth if Kyoto provided referenences, name of sources.


You shouldn't shift the burden off the shoulder of "accuser".
Click to expand...

You should not invoke logic if you don’t even understand basic rules of logic. It just make you look ignorant of the subject. We have no means of verifying whether the claim is true or false. When we have no evidence to resolve the proposition, logic dictates to suspend judgment. If in this case where you are insisting the proposition is false then the burden of proof falls onto the proponent of the claim. If there is no agreeably adequate evidence to support a claim, the claim is considered to be an argument from ignorance.

taxiya said:
I have told you that you have the right to do so in the thread, BUT sticking to my face is neither mature nor convincing. So say what ever you want in the thread, but stay away from replying my post. Or my future answer will be very short.
Click to expand...

Sorry can’t do. You don’t make the rules. If you wish to post controversially then you should be prepared to be called out and to defend your post. You don’t have special rights of immunity. None of us do. I don’t see you holding back your post directing at Samurai Blue when you disagree. Why are you demanding special privilege for your own self?
 
A

ahojunk

Senior Member
As the verdict nears, China is very active on the diplomatic front.....

--------
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Source: Xinhua | 2016-06-26 22:59:30 | Editor: huaxia

RIO DE JANEIRO, June 26 (Xinhua) -- China's sovereignty over the South China Sea islands has already been established and there are no legal reasons for the Philippines' claim for the sovereignty over the Huangyan Island, a Brazilian expert has said.

The islands belong to China and not to the Philippines, and that is a matter already settled decades ago, Carlos Tavares, an author of 10 books on China and a longtime expert of China-Brazil relations, told Xinhua.

He criticized the Philippines for its decision to resort to an arbitration by the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) based in The Hague, the Netherlands.

The Philippines unilaterally initiated an arbitration from the PCA over the South China Sea disputes in 2013. The Chinese government has reiterated its non-acceptance and non-participation stance in the case.

"This sort of conflict should be solved within Asia's borders, preferably by the two parties only," Tavares said.

On the U.S. influence in the case, Tavares said that it was inappropriate for the North-American country to meddle in matters of the Asian nations.

He said that the United States should keep itself out of Asian matters, leaving to Asian nations the task of solving their own disputes.

"China is not interfering in the matters of the North Atlantic, so why is the U.S. trying to meddle in the matters of the South China Sea?" he said.

Tavares remained optimistic about the resolution of the territorial dispute, noting that the issue should be settled as soon as possible.

The Brazilian expert hoped that the new Philippine government would solve its dispute with China through dialogue.
 
Brumby

Brumby

Major
Beijing Rejects South China Sea Case Ahead of July 12 Ruling
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

BEIJING — The
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
in The Hague said on Wednesday that it would
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
in a contentious case between
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
over the South China Sea on July 12.

The
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
centers on the Philippine government’s argument that China’s claims over much of the sea, a strategic waterway in the western Pacific, are illegal under the United Nations Convention on the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. The Philippines initiated the case in 2013 after China seized Scarborough Shoal, an atoll that the Philippines administered and that was a favorite fishing ground for Filipino fishermen.

A special five-member tribunal established by the court in 2013 will also decide on the size of maritime zones around rocks and reefs in the Spratly archipelago off the Philippine coast. It will also rule on whether China has caused environmental damage in constructing an artificial island at Mischief Reef.

China has refused to participate in the proceedings, saying that the tribunal has no jurisdiction, and has insisted that it will ignore its rulings.

The tribunal is not considering questions of sovereignty, and which country owns what islands, reefs and atolls in the sea will remain unresolved by the decision. China and nearly half a dozen countries in Southeast Asia have long disputed ownership of various tiny specks in the waterway.

In a
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said late Wednesday that it would reject any decision by the tribunal.

“China does not accept any means of third-party dispute settlement or any solution imposed on China,” a ministry spokesman, Hong Lei, said. “The Chinese government will continue to abide by international law and basic norms governing international relations as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, and will continue to work with states directly concerned to resolve the relevant disputes in the South China Sea through negotiation and consultation on the basis of respecting historical facts and in accordance with international law, so as to maintain peace and stability in the South China Sea.’’
Click to expand...
 
T

taxiya

Brigadier
Registered Member
Brumby said:
No because what you are referring to wasn’t the post in question. The post that I pointed out but which you have deliberately avoided in addressing and yet you want to emphasize the moral latitude that I am ignoring your points is post # 2751 below.





Are you going to address your accusation that Japan fabricated the news? Can you please attribute it to a Japanese official – the standard that you yourself set or are you conveniently forgetting it?




You should not invoke logic if you don’t even understand basic rules of logic. It just make you look ignorant of the subject. We have no means of verifying whether the claim is true or false. When we have no evidence to resolve the proposition, logic dictates to suspend judgment. If in this case where you are insisting the proposition is false then the burden of proof falls onto the proponent of the claim. If there is no agreeably adequate evidence to support a claim, the claim is considered to be an argument from ignorance.



Sorry can’t do. You don’t make the rules. If you wish to post controversially then you should be prepared to be called out and to defend your post. You don’t have special rights of immunity. None of us do. I don’t see you holding back your post directing at Samurai Blue when you disagree. Why are you demanding special privilege for your own self?
Click to expand...

Another totally lost-in-the-fog mumble-jumble.

From your last paragraph, apprently you have taken a confrontational posture of "sticking-to-the-face" after I have offered disengagement of "not-to-directly-reply-to-eachother's-post". Then you should expect the samething in return at times when I feel enjoyable.
 
Last edited:
GreenestGDP

GreenestGDP

Junior Member
PRC chance of winning the case from Hague Court is zero, especially the Head of ICJ judges in Hague is a Japanese judge.

NOTE:
US ( Ronnie Reagan ) ignore ICJ ruling against US ( US versus Nicaragua case ).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top