Greedy and bully China wants Scarboro...
TehO

Concord, CA

#927 Jun 12, 2013
Austronesian Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
China's 9 dash claim is claiming the Philippines TERRITORIAL SEAS, EEZ, and continental shelf.
The President of UNCLOS has already APPOINTED the JUDGES.
The arbitration will begin soon.
PS: UNCLOS/ITLOS judges are NOT DUMB like you
Yeah, but only Philippines is attending the case I was told, isn't that pointless. Besides UNCLOS is no good against properties already belong to other country.

“China, follow Internat'l Law!”

Since: Jun 12

United States of America

#928 Jun 12, 2013
TehO wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you referring to the fishermen on Spratly islands or the 65 years old Taiwanese fisherman murdered by your PCG in Taiwan's EEZ? Two different issue, one is territory dispute, the other is 1st degree criminal offence.
The Case has been filed that's all you need to know.

The President of ITLOS waited for CHINA but she ran away because she knows her claim is not supported by any international law.

Totally understandable.

Criminals running away of the court is NOTHING new.

“China, follow Internat'l Law!”

Since: Jun 12

United States of America

#929 Jun 12, 2013
TehO wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, but only Philippines is attending the case I was told, isn't that pointless. Besides UNCLOS is no good against properties already belong to other country.
China's 9 dash claim claims both land and water.

UNCLOS will address the water and we will deal with the land later.

UNCLOS claims the Philippines EEZ, Territorial sea, Continental shelf and under water features like the mischief reef.

UNCLOS can answer those things.

“China, follow Internat'l Law!”

Since: Jun 12

United States of America

#930 Jun 12, 2013
TehO wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, but only Philippines is attending the case I was told, isn't that pointless. Besides UNCLOS is no good against properties already belong to other country.
The other Wu Mao ran away avoiding this question. Maybe you can answer?

Again UNCLOS VS. CHINA'S 9 dash claim

They CANNOT ANSWER THIS QUESTION.

Let's quiz this OTHER brainless WU MAO:

China's 9 dash claim and the Scarborough Reef.

According to Article 121 of UCLOS (Regime of islands)

1. An island is a naturally formed area of land, surrounded by water, which is above water at high tide.

2. Except as provided for in paragraph 3, the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf of an island are determined in accordance with the provisions of this Convention applicable to other land territory.

3. Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.

Scarborough reef is NOT AN ISLAND. If proven as a "ROCK" It can only have 12 NM Territorial Sea. If proven part of the Philippines' Continental Shelf, then it will fall INDISPUTABLY part of the philippines' EZZ. Also it CANNOT SUSTAIN HUMAN HABITATION.

So given that Scarborough reef can only have 12 NM Territorial Sea MAXIMUM,

then WHAT IS THE BASIS of CHINA'S 9 dash claim claiming the EEZ of LUZON ISLAND?

Why is CHINA CLAIMING THE EEZ of the ISLAND OF LUZON? What is CHINA'S basis under International Law?

Let see if the BRAINLESS WU MAO can answer this question.

Good Luck!
It is Amazing

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

#931 Jun 12, 2013
Austronesian Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
BTW, here are the JUDGES from the ITLOS thru the PCA
The judges are mo
The Arbitration will start soon.
Bottomline is:-

1. is the TRIBUNAL part of the UN?

2. I would not even bother with who are for as long as they are paid to act their roles and their verdict cannot be enforced it is just a STAGE SHOW. They are FORGETTABLE!

The NEXT QUESTIONS is why are you posting all these over and over again and if this is not SPAMMING, what is?

So STOP your BS and STOP your SPAMMING!

We have been through this before!

Are you a RETARD?
It is Amazing

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

#932 Jun 12, 2013
Austronesian Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
The other Wu Mao ran away avoiding this question. Maybe you can answer?
Again UNCLOS VS. CHINA'S 9 dash claim
They CANNOT ANSWER THIS Qer this question.
Good Luck!
YET more insults and the similar SPAMMING indicating you have lost your ARGUMENT!

So STOP your SPAMMING!

We have been through this before!

Are you a RETARD?
It is Amazing

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

#933 Jun 12, 2013
Austronesian Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
China's 9 dash claim claims both land and water.
UNCLOS will address the water and we will deal with the land later.
UNCLOS claims the Philippines EEZ, Territorial sea, Continental shelf and under water features like the mischief reef.
UNCLOS can answer those things.
Already rebuked in the past post! REPEATED maybe 1000X already!

YET more insults and the similar SPAMMING indicating you have lost your ARGUMENT!

So STOP your SPAMMING!

We have been through this before!

Are you a RETARD?
TehO

Concord, CA

#934 Jun 12, 2013
Austronesian Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
The other Wu Mao ran away avoiding this question. Maybe you can answer?
Again UNCLOS VS. CHINA'S 9 dash claim
They CANNOT ANSWER THIS QUESTION.
Let's quiz this OTHER brainless WU MAO:
China's 9 dash claim and the Scarborough Reef.
According to Article 121 of UCLOS (Regime of islands)
1. An island is a naturally formed area of land, surrounded by water, which is above water at high tide.
2. Except as provided for in paragraph 3, the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf of an island are determined in accordance with the provisions of this Convention applicable to other land territory.
3. Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.
Scarborough reef is NOT AN ISLAND. If proven as a "ROCK" It can only have 12 NM Territorial Sea. If proven part of the Philippines' Continental Shelf, then it will fall INDISPUTABLY part of the philippines' EZZ. Also it CANNOT SUSTAIN HUMAN HABITATION.
So given that Scarborough reef can only have 12 NM Territorial Sea MAXIMUM,
then WHAT IS THE BASIS of CHINA'S 9 dash claim claiming the EEZ of LUZON ISLAND?
Why is CHINA CLAIMING THE EEZ of the ISLAND OF LUZON? What is CHINA'S basis under International Law?
Let see if the BRAINLESS WU MAO can answer this question.
Good Luck!
I still don't understand. UNCLOS article 15 states that it is useless against historical ownership, but yet Philippines still go to UNCLOS to claim by EEZ. Sure, EEZ may give Philippines claim over the whole Spratly, but it is still useless against historical ownership under UNCLOS. Beside to us, it looks really greedy.

Even Vietnam is smart enough not to go via UNCLOS and stick to historical record, and VN's claim is over the whole Spratly as well.
It is Amazing

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

#935 Jun 12, 2013
Austronesian Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
There is NO FILIPINO judge.
Btw, here are the JUDGES from the ITLOS thru the PCA
The judges are mostly from ITLOS, A direct United Nations Branch.
1. Judge Rüdiger Wolfrum (Germany), Member, current ITLOS Judge;
2. Judge Stanislaw Pawlak (Poland), Member, current ITLOS Judge;
3. Judge Jean-Pierre Cot (France), Member, current ITLOS Judge; and
4. Judge Alfred Soons (The Netherlands), Member.
5. Pending.
The Arbitration will start soon.
Why is Shunji Yanai who appointed the rest purposely left out left out?

Scare to review his nationality.

Japanese Ambassador to the Philippines Toshinao Urabe who is very supportive Philippines says that although he personally knew the president, a Japanese compatriot Shunji Yanaoi very well, he expected him to be impartial.

LOL No wonder Chinese, South Korean and other former SEX SLAVES who traveled to Japan to sue the Japanese Government for compensation never got their JUSTICE.

According to the verdict delivered to me and in line with their Government stance, there was never any SEX SLAVES and the RAPE of NANKING never happened! It was all fabricated by ASIANS outside of Japan!

The named Judges happily accepted their appointment because they earned up to ten of millions waiting for cases like this.

Apart from this, the Tribunal is first of all, NOT EVEN A COURT in a tradition sense.

Philippines may happily or unhappily PAID for all these expenses for a POLITICAL VICTORY if there is one.

Maybe the Tribunal have to sue Philippines for the costs! Who knows? Hahahah

In the meantime, the Military Structure for the GARRISON at Scarborough Shoal is being constructed.
TehO

Concord, CA

#936 Jun 12, 2013
It is Amazing wrote:
<quoted text>
Why is Shunji Yanai who appointed the rest purposely left out left out?
Scare to review his nationality.
Japanese Ambassador to the Philippines Toshinao Urabe who is very supportive Philippines says that although he personally knew the president, a Japanese compatriot Shunji Yanaoi very well, he expected him to be impartial.
LOL No wonder Chinese, South Korean and other former SEX SLAVES who traveled to Japan to sue the Japanese Government for compensation never got their JUSTICE.
According to the verdict delivered to me and in line with their Government stance, there was never any SEX SLAVES and the RAPE of NANKING never happened! It was all fabricated by ASIANS outside of Japan!
The named Judges happily accepted their appointment because they earned up to ten of millions waiting for cases like this.
Apart from this, the Tribunal is first of all, NOT EVEN A COURT in a tradition sense.
Philippines may happily or unhappily PAID for all these expenses for a POLITICAL VICTORY if there is one.
Maybe the Tribunal have to sue Philippines for the costs! Who knows? Hahahah
In the meantime, the Military Structure for the GARRISON at Scarborough Shoal is being constructed.
Yeah, you don't want those Japs. Even Filipinas were part of the "comfort women" thing, but the Koreans are most vocal about it. To be fair, Filipinos are tough fighters, the Japs had to use chemical weapons on them. Japs also used chemical weapons against Taiwanese aborigines who are of same origin as Filipinos, very tough fighter. The Han Chinese in Taiwan just surrendered without a fight.

“China, follow Internat'l Law!”

Since: Jun 12

United States of America

#937 Jun 12, 2013
It is Amazing wrote:
<quoted text>
Bottomline is:-
1. is the TRIBUNAL part of the UN?
2. I would not even bother with who are for as long as they are paid to act their roles and their verdict cannot be enforced it is just a STAGE SHOW. They are FORGETTABLE!
The NEXT QUESTIONS is why are you posting all these over and over again and if this is not SPAMMING, what is?
So STOP your BS and STOP your SPAMMING!
We have been through this before!
Are you a RETARD?
The Permanent Court of Arbitration is independent, however it is recognized by the UN and UNCLOS. Under UNCLOS, arbitration process can be done in the Permanent Court of Arbitration (See UNCLOS WEBSITE). The PCA have handles so many International Disputes including UNCLOS CASES. The UN Secretary general receives the final verdict report from the PCA.

The ICJ proposal never pushed through because CHINA rejected it. Both parties must agree. You should blame China if you want ICJ.

The truth is whether in the ICJ, PCA, ITLOS or any International Court, CHINA WOULD NOT SUBMIT HERSELF because she knows she would lose anyway.

The world can see that.

China's rejection to take the issue before the ICJ, ITLOS, and PCA is a

direct admission that she cannot prove her HISTORICAL CLAIM before a

NEUTRAL PROPER COURT.

Why china is scared of the court?

Just use your common sense. you dont have to think deep.

“China, follow Internat'l Law!”

Since: Jun 12

United States of America

#938 Jun 12, 2013
It is Amazing wrote:
<quoted text>
Already rebuked in the past post! REPEATED maybe 1000X already!
YET more insults and the similar SPAMMING indicating you have lost your ARGUMENT!
So STOP your SPAMMING!
We have been through this before!
Are you a RETARD?
Why are WU MAOs scared to answer this question below?

The Wu Mao ran away avoiding this question. Maybe you can answer now?

Again UNCLOS VS. CHINA'S 9 dash claim

They CANNOT ANSWER THIS QUESTION.

Let's quiz this OTHER brainless WU MAO:

China's 9 dash claim and the Scarborough Reef.

According to Article 121 of UCLOS (Regime of islands)

1. An island is a naturally formed area of land, surrounded by water, which is above water at high tide.

2. Except as provided for in paragraph 3, the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf of an island are determined in accordance with the provisions of this Convention applicable to other land territory.

3. Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.

Scarborough reef is NOT AN ISLAND. If proven as a "ROCK" It can only have 12 NM Territorial Sea. If proven part of the Philippines' Continental Shelf, then it will fall INDISPUTABLY part of the philippines' EZZ. Also it CANNOT SUSTAIN HUMAN HABITATION.

So given that Scarborough reef can only have 12 NM Territorial Sea MAXIMUM,

then WHAT IS THE BASIS of CHINA'S 9 dash claim claiming the EEZ of LUZON ISLAND?

Why is CHINA CLAIMING THE EEZ of the ISLAND OF LUZON? What is CHINA'S basis under International Law?

Let see if the BRAINLESS WU MAO can answer this question.

Good Luck!
AAA

Ipswich, UK

#939 Jun 12, 2013
Austronesian Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
The Permanent Court of Arbitration is independent, however it is recognized by the UN and UNCLOS. Under UNCLOS, arbitration process can be done in the Permanent Court of Arbitration (See UNCLOS WEBSITE). The PCA have handles so many International Disputes including UNCLOS CASES. The UN Secretary general receives the final verdict report from the PCA.
The ICJ proposal never pushed through because CHINA rejected it. Both parties must agree. You should blame China if you want ICJ.
The truth is whether in the ICJ, PCA, ITLOS or any International Court, CHINA WOULD NOT SUBMIT HERSELF because she knows she would lose anyway.
The world can see that.
China's rejection to take the issue before the ICJ, ITLOS, and PCA is a
direct admission that she cannot prove her HISTORICAL CLAIM before a
NEUTRAL PROPER COURT.
Why china is scared of the court?
Just use your common sense. you dont have to think deep.
I still think that Philippines has been duped into going to UNCLOS, now it can't even back track to claim by other means. Also Philippines trying to claim the whole spratly is very greedy. The decision will be final and there is no going back, and it is no binding, can't see where it can go with this. Vietnam is claiming everything as well, but it is smart to wait and see.

“China, follow Internat'l Law!”

Since: Jun 12

United States of America

#940 Jun 12, 2013
It is Amazing wrote:
<quoted text>
Already rebuked in the past post! REPEATED maybe 1000X already!
YET more insults and the similar SPAMMING indicating you have lost your ARGUMENT!
So STOP your SPAMMING!
We have been through this before!
Are you a RETARD?
Rebuked or UNANSWERED 100000x? lol

hahahaha it remains UNANSWERED up to this day.

The truth is,

No International Law Supports your claim

and NO COUNTRY SUPPORTS your fantasy 9 dash claim even RUSSIA ahahaha. Every country told CHINA to Follow International Law instead lmao!

Only CHINA believes in her FANTASY 9 dash claim.

“China, follow Internat'l Law!”

Since: Jun 12

United States of America

#941 Jun 12, 2013
TehO wrote:
<quoted text>
I still don't understand. UNCLOS article 15 states that it is useless against historical ownership, but yet Philippines still go to UNCLOS to claim by EEZ. Sure, EEZ may give Philippines claim over the whole Spratly, but it is still useless against historical ownership under UNCLOS. Beside to us, it looks really greedy.
Even Vietnam is smart enough not to go via UNCLOS and stick to historical record, and VN's claim is over the whole Spratly as well.
You can claim waters now?????lol

First of all, your HISTORICAL CLAIM is SO WEAK. How can HISTORIC claims claim the WATERS of LUZON Island? That is just retarded.

Why are you claiming the EEZ, Territorial Sea and Continental Shelf of the island of LUZON?

What is your historical basis to that? and What law supports your historical basis????

Historical claims ARE NOT HISTORICAL TITLES.

Italy cannot claim the ROMAN EMPIRE WATERS TODAY

Mongolia cannot claim MONGOL WATERS today

Iran Cannot claim PERSIAN WATERS today.

The South China sea is not your INTERNAL LAKE.

Hahaha, USE your common sense! Most countries have told you already to refer to International Laws. Don't you get it?

That no INTERNATIONAL LAW SUPPORTS your claim and no country supports your claim. Even Vietnam vocalized they want to resolve the issue using International Laws including UNCLOS.

When China ratified UNCLOS in 1982, it gave up whatever historic rights it had to the natural resources in areas that are now the EEZ or continental shelf of other States. China's legal relations with other Parties to UNCLOS are now governed by UNCLOS, and China cannot use its domestic law as an excuse not to fulfill its international obligations under UNCLOS.

First, Article 10 (Part II, Article 10,#6) on bays provides that States may draw closing lines across the mouths of bays if such lines do not exceed 24 nm. Article 10 also states that the provision on bays does not apply to UNCLOS and contains only two provisions which are possibly relevant to so-called “historic bays”. Second, Article 15 (Part II, Article 15) on the delimitation of territorial sea boundaries provides that as a general rule, the median line should be applied in determining the territorial sea boundary, unless it is necessary by reason of historic title or other special circumstances to delimit the boundary in another matter. Third, Article 298 gives States Parties the right to opt out of the compulsory binding dispute settlement system in section 2 of Part XV for disputes involving “historic bays or titles”. Given these provisions, it can be argued that UNCLOS does not recognize any “historic waters” or “historic rights” in areas outside of the territorial sea.

Again the Philippines claim is backed up by International Law

China gave up its HISTORICAL RIGHTS when it signed UNCLOS in 1996. Therefore, China's Historical Basis in INVALID.

“China, follow Internat'l Law!”

Since: Jun 12

United States of America

#942 Jun 12, 2013
AAA wrote:
<quoted text>
I still think that Philippines has been duped into going to UNCLOS, now it can't even back track to claim by other means. Also Philippines trying to claim the whole spratly is very greedy. The decision will be final and there is no going back, and it is no binding, can't see where it can go with this. Vietnam is claiming everything as well, but it is smart to wait and see.
Many many many International Law experts have supported the Philippines UNCLOS claim. I will post the long list of International Law Experts that supports the Philippines with their opinions later. Some of them are even CHINESE by ancestry.

Also, many many COUNTRIES have supported the Philippines UNCLOS CLAIM....and UNSURPRISINGLY no COUNTRY SUPPORTS CHINA'S CLAIM.

“China, follow Internat'l Law!”

Since: Jun 12

United States of America

#943 Jun 12, 2013
TehO wrote:
<quoted text>
I still don't understand. UNCLOS article 15 states that it is useless against historical ownership, but yet Philippines still go to UNCLOS to claim by EEZ. Sure, EEZ may give Philippines claim over the whole Spratly, but it is still useless against historical ownership under UNCLOS. Beside to us, it looks really greedy.
Even Vietnam is smart enough not to go via UNCLOS and stick to historical record, and VN's claim is over the whole Spratly as well.
Read this:

When China ratified UNCLOS in 1982, it gave up whatever historic rights it had to the natural resources in areas that are now the EEZ or continental shelf of other States. China's legal relations with other Parties to UNCLOS are now governed by UNCLOS, and China cannot use its domestic law as an excuse not to fulfill its international obligations under UNCLOS.

First, Article 10 (Part II, Article 10,#6) on bays provides that States may draw closing lines across the mouths of bays if such lines do not exceed 24 nm. Article 10 also states that the provision on bays does not apply to UNCLOS and contains only two provisions which are possibly relevant to so-called “historic bays”. Second, Article 15 (Part II, Article 15) on the delimitation of territorial sea boundaries provides that as a general rule, the median line should be applied in determining the territorial sea boundary, unless it is necessary by reason of historic title or other special circumstances to delimit the boundary in another matter. Third, Article 298 gives States Parties the right to opt out of the compulsory binding dispute settlement system in section 2 of Part XV for disputes involving “historic bays or titles”. Given these provisions, it can be argued that UNCLOS does not recognize any “historic waters” or “historic rights” in areas outside of the territorial sea.

Again the Philippines claim is backed up by International Law

China gave up its HISTORICAL RIGHTS when it signed UNCLOS in 1996. Therefore, China's Historical Basis in INVALID.
AAA

Ipswich, UK

#944 Jun 12, 2013
Austronesian Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
Read this:
When China ratified UNCLOS in 1982, it gave up whatever historic rights it had to the natural resources in areas that are now the EEZ or continental shelf of other States. China's legal relations with other Parties to UNCLOS are now governed by UNCLOS, and China cannot use its domestic law as an excuse not to fulfill its international obligations under UNCLOS.
First, Article 10 (Part II, Article 10,#6) on bays provides that States may draw closing lines across the mouths of bays if such lines do not exceed 24 nm. Article 10 also states that the provision on bays does not apply to UNCLOS and contains only two provisions which are possibly relevant to so-called “historic bays”. Second, Article 15 (Part II, Article 15) on the delimitation of territorial sea boundaries provides that as a general rule, the median line should be applied in determining the territorial sea boundary, unless it is necessary by reason of historic title or other special circumstances to delimit the boundary in another matter. Third, Article 298 gives States Parties the right to opt out of the compulsory binding dispute settlement system in section 2 of Part XV for disputes involving “historic bays or titles”. Given these provisions, it can be argued that UNCLOS does not recognize any “historic waters” or “historic rights” in areas outside of the territorial sea.
Again the Philippines claim is backed up by International Law
China gave up its HISTORICAL RIGHTS when it signed UNCLOS in 1996. Therefore, China's Historical Basis in INVALID.
That is absolutely nonsense you just wrote. The nine-dash line map shows the sea border between China and a neighboring ASEAN country was since 1948, and yet no countries have disputed that for more than 50 years. Besides Article 15 of the 1982 UNCLOS convention clearly states that historic titles are exempt from the 200-mile EEZ rule.

Also Vietnam's EEZ also covers the whole of Spratly, so how's that going to work with Philippines's EEZ. Both of which is invalid against historical claim.

“China, follow Internat'l Law!”

Since: Jun 12

United States of America

#945 Jun 12, 2013
It is Amazing wrote:
<quoted text>
Why is Shunji Yanai who appointed the rest purposely left out left out?
Scare to review his nationality.
Japanese Ambassador to the Philippines Toshinao Urabe who is very supportive Philippines says that although he personally knew the president, a Japanese compatriot Shunji Yanaoi very well, he expected him to be impartial.
LOL No wonder Chinese, South Korean and other former SEX SLAVES who traveled to Japan to sue the Japanese Government for compensation never got their JUSTICE.
According to the verdict delivered to me and in line with their Government stance, there was never any SEX SLAVES and the RAPE of NANKING never happened! It was all fabricated by ASIANS outside of Japan!
The named Judges happily accepted their appointment because they earned up to ten of millions waiting for cases like this.
Apart from this, the Tribunal is first of all, NOT EVEN A COURT in a tradition sense.
Philippines may happily or unhappily PAID for all these expenses for a POLITICAL VICTORY if there is one.
Maybe the Tribunal have to sue Philippines for the costs! Who knows? Hahahah
In the meantime, the Military Structure for the GARRISON at Scarborough Shoal is being constructed.
First you talked trash about the court, now the judges.

But you will fail ONCE more. Yes, Shunji Yanai is the President. BUT He WILL NOT BE PART OF THE ARBITRATION JUDGES.

The fifth judge was Judge Chris Pinto of Sri Lanka. He resigned because HIS wife is a FILIPINA. It is good for us the hes resigned because WU MAO'S and CHINA will try to find any hole to DISRESPECT the proceeding (like what you are doing right now.

The Original Arbitrators were (Shunji Yanai is not part of it):

The members of the Arbitral Tribunal are:

1. Judge Chris Pinto (Sri Lanka), President; (RESIGNED because his wife is a FILIPINA)

2. Judge Rüdiger Wolfrum (Germany), Member, current ITLOS Judge;

3. Judge Stanislaw Pawlak (Poland), Member, current ITLOS Judge;

4. Judge Jean-Pierre Cot (France), Member, current ITLOS Judge; and

5. Judge Alfred Soons (The Netherlands), Member.

-------

Now CHINA cannot claim Impartiality as:

1. Shunji Yanai, a Japanese judge will not participate

2. Judge Chris Pinto who has a FILIPINA wife RESIGNED

3. And Superpowers like the USA have lost in the PERMANENT COURT OF ARBITRATION.

---

NO MORE ESCAPING CHINA! lmao zedong.

“China, follow Internat'l Law!”

Since: Jun 12

United States of America

#946 Jun 12, 2013
TehO wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, you don't want those Japs. Even Filipinas were part of the "comfort women" thing, but the Koreans are most vocal about it. To be fair, Filipinos are tough fighters, the Japs had to use chemical weapons on them. Japs also used chemical weapons against Taiwanese aborigines who are of same origin as Filipinos, very tough fighter. The Han Chinese in Taiwan just surrendered without a fight.
Off topic

No matter how you change the topic, still the CASE HAS BEEN FILED!

The arbitration will START soon!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

China Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
I HATE CHINA (in response to "why do Westerners... (Nov '08) 23 hr Fuckthechinese 2,558
News Mainland agents - tipped off Hong Kong about Si... Thu TW_sugar_daddio 12
White Privilege Privilege Nov 28 Lisa 1
India to outpace China to be No.1 economy by 20... (Mar '12) Nov 28 FREE TIBET 163
News Here's what 5 of your favorite products would c... Nov 27 Bill 1
News China, Afghanistan, Pakistan agree to work for ... (Dec '13) Nov 26 KIA 82
News What will it take for the 'Asian Silicon Valley... Nov 25 INDEPENDENT TAIWAN 8
More from around the web