Japan shrugs off S Korean calls for 'sex slave' apology

Like I have said in other threads, a lot of nations in Asia still hold hard feelings towards Japan. I tend to agree with the critics here regarding the South Korean political posturing. South Korea is far from a leader in human rights issues themselves and that is a current issue, not one dating 70 years ago.

While I am as much horrified by acts and attrocities committed in war as any other sane and reasonable person I tend to agree that normal rules of society don't apply to war. I mean how can they? as much as I respect the desire to keep war a civilized affair the fact is it is not civilized and never will be. War is about death and facing death. Those that start wars are rarely those that fight them, so asking others to apologize for the people that did fight and die in war seems to be a worthless and foolhardy gesture that gains nothing.

I have never understood (nor could I) for example; the War Crimes trials and commisions after WWII. They happened, some people were hunted from one end of the globe to another fifty years after the fact. In my opinion it accomplished nothing, resolved nothing and was a complete waste of human resources, time and effort. It was merely an act of vengance, certainly not one of justice. What was done was done and happened only because of war and would not have occurred under any other circumstance. That is just my personal opinion though, other opinions most certainly differ.

Agree to ShogunXXX's statement. And I think Japan should settle everything with the neighbour countries soon - before the people from back then are all dead on both sides. When everyone is dead from back then there will be hate from the younger generation in they other countries, but the younger Japanese generation won't admit it or apologize for it because they didn't have do anything wrong.

In Germany, e.g., the people who where alive during the 3rd Reich as well as during WWII apologized. And they did a lot for the victims (regardless if they did enough or not). So nowadays Germany is on good terms with most countries (especially France). I would wish that Korea and Japan have a similar relationship in the future like France and Germany have now.

ShogunXXX said:

Ceewan: may be as a victim of deportation, torture, etc. (or members of your family) you would understand that people want some kind of justice, even if it can not change what happened, and that it seems it can not prevent that kind of atrocities to repeat again (the history of mankind floats over an ocean of human blood).

Click to expand...

Ya know, it is okay that you have a different opinion, I expected people to. And that, well that part is okay. But don't fucking call me out like that. You don't know me. You don't know the hell that I have called my life. You really don't know jack-diddly-shit about my past. I know anger, hate, injustice and helplessness. I know about these things and more. Don't make such assumptions about me. I believe in forgiveness, acceptance and moving on with life in a positive manner because that is how I try to live my life each day. So on this particular subject I could voice no other opinion. To me, this about people hanging on to the past instead of focusing on the here and now. That doesn't do anyone any good.

And don't worry, I ain't mad at ya. You probably didn't mean any offense and if you did maybe you just didn't know any better. Either way, it ain't nothing but a thing. I just felt I had to clear the air so that we might understand each other a little better.

Maybe somethings are just lost in translation. Like saying "I am a John" has connotations where I come from and it is not complimentary ( I actually would not refer to myself as a "Bob" either if I were you). It is best, when making an argument on a subject matter, to leave the other person of a different view out of your argument. Saying if I had suffered as others did: "Ceewan: may be as a victim of deportation, torture, etc. (or members of your family) you would understand that", that made your argument personal and under the assumption that I did not understand what it is to "suffer at the hands of others" not to mention bringing my family into it (which just isn't cricket). But we are cool. I actually am fond of you and your contributions, alternate viewpoints and your passion for the subject matter you bring up. I find it refreshing.

a person who takes the sentence written by shogun ("may be as a victim of deportation, torture, etc. (or members of your family) you would understand that people want some kind of justice") to be in reference to anybody other than him/herself, or others, and not directed at anyone on the forum can only be intent on misinterpreting the world around them.
then again, some people just assume that everything is a personal attack.

I don't understand how else that could have been taken. The comment was directed at me. You have directed a few at me in the past yourself. But even if you are right, and I am not saying you are, don't act like you don't have a few problems all of your own. So if you have an opinion on the general topic feel free to share it. Otherwise feel free to kiss my ass.

Ceewan said:

Like I have said in other threads, a lot of nations in Asia still hold hard feelings towards Japan. I tend to agree with the critics here regarding the South Korean political posturing. South Korea is far from a leader in human rights issues themselves and that is a current issue, not one dating 70 years ago.

Click to expand...

I agree, it's the same as with Greece threatening to seize German property, the guilt has to stop somewhere and it's silly to claim that an entire country should keep being guilty for 70 years after the facts.

Ceewan said:

While I am as much horrified by acts and attrocities committed in war as any other sane and reasonable person I tend to agree that normal rules of society don't apply to war. I mean how can they? as much as I respect the desire to keep war a civilized affair the fact is it is not civilized and never will be. War is about death and facing death. Those that start wars are rarely those that fight them, so asking others to apologize for the people that did fight and die in war seems to be a worthless and foolhardy gesture that gains nothing.

Click to expand...

Normal rules yes but throughout modern times there have been laws of war(and/or the high seas) to try and minimize civilian casualties and retalliatory killings of civilians because of legitimate guerilla/partisan activities. I do think however that it is appropriate and important to bring the perpetrators of war crimes to justice, regardless of which side they fought on.

Ceewan said:

I have never understood (nor could I) for example; the War Crimes trials and commisions after WWII. They happened, some people were hunted from one end of the globe to another fifty years after the fact. In my opinion it accomplished nothing, resolved nothing and was a complete waste of human resources, time and effort. It was merely an act of vengance, certainly not one of justice. What was done was done and happened only because of war and would not have occurred under any other circumstance. That is just my personal opinion though, other opinions most certainly differ.

Click to expand...

I do agree that the War Crimes tribunals and Nuremberg trials were a bit too inconsistent in their application of international law(but not so far that it was only vengeance and not justice), they ought to have prosecuted and executed Allied commanders guilty of war crimes as well, the nukes over Japan, the fire-bombings of German cities, Soviet revenge killings and general mistreatment of German POW's comes to mind as something that definitely would have gotten somebody executed if the Germans/Japanese were the perpetrators, lesser offense that also comes to mind are for example the US internment camps for Japanese immigrants and the seizure of their property. The courts actually tried to prosecute German submariners for unrestricted submarine warfare and was only stopped because of some courageous US submarine Captains with more moral fibre than the politicians stood up in front of the court and testified that they did the exact same things and that if the Germans were prosecuted so should they. The cases were dropped rather than persecute "American Heroes" which would have been a PR nightmare.

I am a fan of history. Particularly I have enjoyed the study of the history of war. Yet I enjoy the study of society as well. Sociology is one of the purest forms of the Social Sciences. Law and order are a good thing. Humanity, as a whole, has fought long and hard to achieve a more orderly world.

But laws have no place in war. The only rule of war is to win. Laws of conduct concerning war are agreements that may inhibit or prevent success in war so they may and will be ignored. I do not have to justify actions that people have taken in times of war because as deplorable as they may be war justifies everything. That is how it has always been and that is how it always will be.

Discipline is different than law. Armies require disipline in order to do what must be done or they are very likely to fuck it up. Sane people enter armies but sane people don't leave them. The only sane thing to do when people are shooting at you or dropping bombs on you is to run or hide. Sanity is not an option in war. War is brutal, it is the bringer of death. One of Sun Tzus' favorite weapons was fire, that is in order to win he would lure armies into a firetrap and burn them alive. Sun Tzu is considered, to this day, to have been a military genius.

Diplomacy is great. It is civilized. But no historian worth his salt will tell you that war has not shaped the world we live in. I am appalled at much of what the Japanese, Germans, and Allies did during war. I understand it without condoning it. War is hell.

So let the survivors of war cry and lament. If they are too stupid just to be glad that they are alive then shame on them for their dishonesty. The Dead speak no more.

Yes I enjoy studying history as well To some extent I find sociology interesting but at the moment not a subject I've studied in greater detail.

Law & Order is a good thing yes, and if we don't extend this to include all forms of conflict then it will follow that the only force that means anything is having the power to subjugate others to your will and then all our law & order have absolutely no meaning. One of the precepts of ethics and moral is that a concept has to be universally appliccable to be valid, therefore if we want law & order we have to apply it universally and that means extending it to include warfare.

While the laws of conduct may inhibit victory and therefore in the effort to secure victory they may be ignored I do not agree with you that just because they are inevitably broken they should not exist.

They serve to provide a framework and guidelines for what we the world considers acceptable and ideally they punish the guilty afterwards.
There are no heroes in war, only people who do what is necessary to secure victory. But some things are inherently unjustifiable regardless of the circumstances, yes they happen in war because as you say there is no sanity in war. But then the perpetrator should have to face justice for his crimes, and if the atrocity is severe enough then his life should be forfeit.

These laws works to limit the scope and effect of a war and because of how destructive modern warfare could otherwise be(it is scary how trivial it is to decimate a major population centre completely and yet leave every building intact if that's your preference) I think that they're absolutely neccessary.

Ultimately the ultimate solution to any conflict would otherwise be the complete and utter annihilation of your foe down to the last infant(and with modern science/technology it has even become trivial to do so) because if you leave anybody alive then the conflict may eventually arise again.

A war does not end because somebody proclaims themselves victor and unless you incorporate some concept of justice the war will never end because the lamentations of the survivors will turn into a (righteous?) quest for vengeance and the circle will be perpetuated in infinity with attacks on military bases in peaceful territories or suicide bombers in café's and restaurants visited by service members etc.

One of the obvious weaknesses of international law is that it is only applicable between states and starts to falter when warlike conditions are perpetuated by organizations or even individuals, something that was inconceivable in ancient times but can be done with ease today because of the weapons we have available today.

The main implied goal with an attack by fire(today more widely interpreted to include bombs, artillery barrages etc.) is to destroy troop concentrations or logistical stores with minimal application of effort. "There are five ways of attacking with fire. The first is to burn soldiers in their camp; the second is to burn stores; the third is to burn baggage trains; the fourth is to burn arsenals and magazines; the fifth is to hurl dropping fire amongst the enemy. - Sun Tzu"

Sun Tzu's absolute favourite concept above all else was "Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting." Not in order to avoid unnecessary suffering but because it's more effective and less burdening on your own nation to do it that way.

I do agree that war corrodes the sanity of soldiers. But when you act outside the outmost limits of what can be considered acceptable for a human being there needs to be consequences and punishment. And the own nation is rarely willing to punish their own "heroes" without some sort of incitement/superior authority telling them to, just look at how Serbia hailed mass murderers as heroes worthy of praise after the Balkan Wars.

Ceewan said:

Diplomacy is geat. It is civilized. But no historian worth his salt will tell you that war has not shaped the world we live in.

Click to expand...

Of course. That is an inevitable conclusion, or as Clausewitz famously said on the subject "War is merely the continuation of politics by other means."

Ceewan said:

I am appalled at much of what the Japanese, Germans, and Allies did during war. I understand it without condoning it. War is hell.
So let the survivors of war cry and lament. If they are too stupid just to be glad that they are alive then shame on them for their dishonesty. The Dead speak no more.

Click to expand...

I do find it interesting that you understand that but yet say that terrorism is utterly incomprehensible(another post another thread).
Personally I view that as just another form of warfare that is very much in line with Sun Tzu's teachings and also well in line with the Total War concept that permeated strategic thinking in WWII(that anything that contributes to the enemy war effort is a legitimate target).
"And therefore those skilled in war bring the enemy to the field of battle and are not brought there by him." - Sun Tzu
"Speed is the essence of war. Take advantage of the enemy's unpreparedness; travel by unexpected routes and strike him where he has taken no precautions." - Sun Tzu
"Be extremely subtle, even to the point of formlessness. Be extremely mysterious, even to the point of soundlessness. Thereby you can be the director of the opponent's fate." - Sun Tzu
"So in war, the way is to avoid what is strong and to strike at what is weak." - Sun Tzu
"If he is taking his ease, give him no rest. If his forces are united, separate them." - Sun Tzu

hmm I wrote a novel again, sorry for that.

Terrorism is not war. Terrorism is murder, extortion, and violence upon others without any actual purpose. There is no end game with terrorists. Terrorists have no accomplishable goal, only an unrealistic ideal that only they can understand. I do not think you understand the true concept of terrorism.

Perhaps you seem to misunderstand the concept of war as well. Sun Tzu was a general who served his emperor. War is waged between countries, not individuals. Clausewitz was only partially right and that too is widely understood by historians. It is individuals who fight the wars and die in them. On the battlefield it is the individual who is the policy maker, not the diplomat. It is his life on the line as well as the life of his comrades. That will never change and cannot ever change. And individuals are flawed characters, thus war must always be flawed. So attrocities are then committed in the name of war. Yet to believe that these same people would be dangers to society outside of the war they fought is an undefendable and unsubstantiated argument. War itself is the guilty party but a concept cannot be punished, only scapegoats can.

I understand why there are "rules" to civilized war. Yet I also understand how war erodes the ability to substain these laws. May we never see a WWIII but if we did, you would see it on a grand scale. There is no such thing as a nice, civilized war. Killing each other is not nice nor civilized.

Ceewan said:

Terrorism is not war. Terrorism is murder, extortion, and violence upon others without any actual purpose. There is no end game with terrorists. Terrorists have no accomplishable goal, only an unrealistic ideal that only they can understand. I do not think you understand the true concept of terrorism.

Click to expand...

It's a form of war, they have a purpose and a goal regardless of whether we may not understand it or approve of it. Nobody does anything without a reason. They have a conviction in their own set of ideals and values which we may not approve of or even understand, but they are waging war for them and the way they are waging war is perfectly understandable albeit despicable by our standards.
By modern standards the Polish and French resistance movements during WWII would have been branded as Terrorists, they did many of the same things as PLO or Hezbollah, or for that matter Al Qaeda(during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan). So the definition of Terrorists are blurry at best. Because states likes to call dissenters Terrorists. Ukraine for example calls the separatists terrorists, Russia calls/called the Chechen separatists terrorists, Israel calls PLO, Hamas & Hezbollah(with a lot of legitimacy) terrorists, some call Israel State Terrorists(also with a lot of legitimacy), UK called IRA terrorists.
Theres no international conclusion on exactly what Terrorism is because different parties wants the definition to cover their particular enemy. Terrorism is a charged word so it will inevitably be invoked by states when convenient regardless of whether the dissenters have a legitimate cause under international law.

Ceewan said:

Perhaps you seem to misunderstand the concept of war as well. Sun Tzu was a general who served his emperor. War is waged between countries, not individuals. Clausewitz was only partially right and that too is widely understood by historians.

Click to expand...

War can most generally be described as a state of armed conflict between two or more autonomous organizations(often states but not necessarily so) or you can simply define it as the absence of peace(a cease fire is technically a state of war).
It's something we humans has been doing for a lot longer than there have been nation states, so it's not something that can only happen between nations. But yes, it requires some sort of minimum momentum of individuals or it's just a battle/brawl/fight.

Ceewan said:

And individuals are flawed characters, thus war must always be flawed. So attrocities are then committed in the name of war. Yet to believe that these same people would be dangers to society outside of the war they fought is an undefendable and unsubstantiated argument. War itself is the guilty party but a concept cannot be punished, only scapegoats can.

Click to expand...

I didn't claim that they would automatically be dangers to society outside of war(though many become mentally unstable and as a result become dangers to society). I'm saying that if they have committed atrocities during the course of that war then they need to be accountable and responsible for their actions.
War is a concept and not capable of thought or action, and therefore not capable of doing anything. Stating as you do that war is somehow responsible for something is excusing individuals for what they have done and no different from excusing a murderer claiming that "the voices in my head made me do it" and expecting society to buy that as an excuse for killing another human being.
Personally I think that's a ridiculous claim, people are responsible for their actions as long as they're capable of reason, and the fact that soldiers don't just massacre everything in sight whether they be friend or foe clearly makes them capable of independent thought and reason and therefore responsible for their actions no matter how vile.
And therefore just like any other criminal they need to be held accountable for that and punished accordingly, anything else is indefensible and an affront to the concept of justice or Law & Order. They are not scapegoats of any kind, they are human beings responsible for their actions. Blaming some incorporeal concept for their actions would however be attempting to make a scapegoat out of something.

Ceewan said:

I understand why there are "rules" to civilized war. Yet I also understand how war erodes the ability to substain these laws. May we never see a WWIII but if we did, you would see it on a grand scale. There is no such thing as a nice, civilized war. Killing each other is not nice nor civilized.

Click to expand...

War is never civilized, it is never nice. And of course it erodes the ability to maintain these laws for the duration of that war. But it is important to hold the perpetrators responsible once order has been restored. It was obviously impossible to charge Himmler with atrocities for the duration of WWII but it became possible once WWII was over, war isn't somehow an excuse or protection for terrible and heinous acts.

Elldallan said:

It's a form of war

Click to expand...

No, it is not. The term "war is often used as a synonym for "conflict". Terrorism is not a type of warfare, it is not guirella warfare, it is a crime against humanity and almost inclusively targets defensless unarmed civilians.

Elldallan said:

By modern standards the Polish and French resistance movements during WWII would have been branded as Terrorists, they did many of the same things as PLO or Hezbollah, or for that matter Al Qaeda(during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan).

Click to expand...

That is ludicrous. The resistance fighters, in various occupied countries during WWII were clearly targeting the occupying force and in many instances were working in conjuction with the Allied Forces. They did not raid schools and kill little children and teachers while claiming a victory against the opposition, like what recently happened in Pakistan.

Elldallan said:

UK called IRA terrorists

Click to expand...

As sympathetic as I am to the plight of the the Irish people the IRA were indeed clearly terrorists. The PLO were clearly terrorists as are the Hezbollah. In no way, shape or form are Israeli terrorists. Those involved in a civil war where their targets are the current government, govenment agencies and military forces; are not terrorists.

It is very simple. The key word in Terrorist is "terror". A terrorists acts are meant to instill fear in a population. They are cowardous, muderous thugs who are the scum of the earth. Comparing them to the French Resistance of WWII is abominable. At least try comparing them to the Nazis. You would still be wrong but at least you would have some basis for argument.

Elldallan said:

War is a concept and not capable of thought or action, and therefore not capable of doing anything. Stating as you do that war is somehow responsible for something is excusing individuals for what they have done and no different from excusing a murderer claiming that "the voices in my head made me do it" and expecting society to buy that as an excuse for killing another human being.

Click to expand...

Soldiers kill each other, in peace time we would call that murder. We do not call it murder in war. There is a clear precedent for my argument. In addition: "people that hear voices in their head" just might claim the insanity defense. That means that they were not of sound mind and had no control over their own actions. It is an accepted defense in many nations.

Elldallan said:

war isn't somehow an excuse or protection for terrible and heinous acts.

Click to expand...

Of course it is and it always has been. What is more heinous than killing your fellow man? In war there will always be "collateral damage" (how I despise politically correct terminolgy). Unarmed people will always get caught up in the fighting and you can't punish every soldier, pilot and sailor for that nor is it common to do so. War isn't an excuse for the heinous acts of WWII but it most surely was the cause. What the Nazis' did to the Jewish people was despicable beyond mention but it stopped after the war was over. Nothing was ever going to change what happened. The same goes for what Japan did in WWII.

What is done is done, let it go. I did enjoy the digression but I have done the best I care to make my case and I too will "let go". You are welcome to have the last word if you wish but I am done here. It has been fun.

Ceewan said:

No, it is not. The term "war is often used as a synonym for "conflict". Terrorism is not a type of warfare, it is not guirella warfare, it is a crime against humanity and almost inclusively targets defensless unarmed civilians.

Click to expand...

War, in the popular sense, a conflict among political groups involving hostilities of considerable duration and magnitude.
Terrorists can definitely be considered a political group as they typically have a political agenda, for example Hamas or PLO.

Ceewan said:

That is ludicrous. The resistance fighters, in various occupied countries during WWII were clearly targeting the occupying force and in many instances were working in conjuction with the Allied Forces. They did not raid schools and kill little children and teachers while claiming a victory against the opposition, like what recently happened in Pakistan.

Click to expand...

It was not that uncommon for them to consider people who didn't actively participate in the resistance as acceptable casualties. And civilian collaborators were generally treated worse even though they're civilians according to the law and entitled to as much protection as any other civilians, the civilian government is even bound to cooperate with the occupying power under some circumstances in the Geneva Convention(and yes I know the Geneva Convention was written after WWII). So while I do agree that they certainly were less extreme than modern terrorists they still committed acts that would today be prohibited under the Geneva Conventions as targeting civilians and they would most certainly have been branded as terrorists by the German occupational government and/or Vichy France.

Ceewan said:

As sympathetic as I am to the plight of the the Irish people the IRA were indeed clearly terrorists. The PLO were clearly terrorists as are the Hezbollah. In no way, shape or form are Israeli terrorists. Those involved in a civil war where their targets are the current government, govenment agencies and military forces; are not terrorists.

Click to expand...

Yes the IRA were terrorists, but they also had some debatable legitimacy as a resistance movement, their resistance only really took off after British military killed peaceful protesters, but eventually it escalated into the bombings they became famous for which were definitely abominable. The PLO and Hezbollah also have a significant of legitimacy as resistance movements against the illegal occupation of their territory by Israel, though the means with which they conduct that resistance is abominable.
If they limited their targets to military ones but with little regard for collateral damage they'd be no better or worse than Israel itself and unlike Israel have both a moral and legal right for their actions. It'd be excessive certainly but so is the actions of Israel where seemingly any amount of collateral damage is justified to maintain their occupation of usurped territory, or as they like to call it, Self Defence(which is completely bogus because an occupying power cannot legitimately claim self defence against those which they occupy).
Israel is most certainly not involved in anything that can be considered a civil war because they're illegally claiming/occupying territory which is not legitimately theirs. And the lawful inhabitants have a legal right to resist the occupation by force of arms if they so choose, and I do think that there is a reasonable legitimacy to the claims that Israel are exercising state terrorism.
Israel uses blatantly excessive force in direct contradiction with the Geneva Conventions concerning warfare in urban terrain. The appropriate response to a rocket attack such as the ones they're facing is not a 1000lb bomb to flatten an entire block when you have weapons that are considerably less indiscriminate and using blatantly excessive force in a manner can't be considered anything other than "intended to instil fear in a population".
Furthermore dropping leaflets saying "we will bomb here in 5-30 minutes"(and then doing so) can also not be considered anything other than an act of terror because any legitimate military objective will have long evacuated the target area along with the civilians and it's definitely not in direct response to "taking fire" as it is delayed, it therefore lacks any military gain and is nothing but an action deliberately "intended to instil fear in a population".
The bulldozing of the homes of families of known suicide bombers is obviously excessive and has no justifiable legal basis(as the suicide bomber is already dead and the remaining family have likely done nothing illegal), it's simply a manner of collective punishment deliberately "meant to instil fear in a population".
Furthermore, The Geneva Conventions explicitly forbid nations from settling their own population in occupied areas(such as Israel is and has been doing for the past several decades). and as they're not supposed to exist the legal status of Israeli settlers as civilians is a gray area similar to the illegal combatants expression minted by GWB. So that even though it's morally questionable the intentional killing of Israeli settlers might not legally constitute a war crime under the Geneva Conventions as they're in blatant breach of said conventions and therefore might have lost the protection enshrined for civilians there. I'm guessing it will eventually be clarified now that the Palestinians have joined the ICC. It will certainly be interesting to see the result of any accusations of war crimes against Israel because while it is a blatantly obvious fact that Hamas frequently commits them the IDF claims to be morally flawless and without any faults despite claims of using human shields and banned weapons.

As long as Israel is occupying territory outside the borders enshrined in the 1947 UN partition plan for Palestine and there is no peace treaty establishing other borders, such as the pre 1967 borders that the Palestinians have in reality recognized (as have the UN Security Council and most of the world) I think that the Palestinian people have a right to resist that illegal occupation(and this is supported by international law) by force of arms and as such any Israel claim of self defence is bogus until such a time as they have withdrawn to positions behind previously mentioned borders. But as long as the occupation continues I think that the Palestinians are in the right to resist but that their methods are heinous and should change.
If they could target their rockets exclusively at Military and/or Government targets then those attacks would be justified no matter the damage inflicted to such targets and even some manner of unavoidable collateral damage. If their suicide bombers could target just serving soldiers, whether at liberty or in service then that'd also be justified. It's the deliberate targeting of civilians that are abominable, not the resistance itself. For example snipers killing soldiers and/or police at checkpoints is something that is completely legitimate by any reasonable standard, as is the capturing enemy soldiers(but not their execution as they are then POW's which have rights under the Geneva Conventions)

Ceewan said:

It is very simple. The key word in Terrorist is "terror". A terrorists acts are meant to instill fear in a population. They are cowardous, muderous thugs who are the scum of the earth. Comparing them to the French Resistance of WWII is abominable. At lest try comparing them to the Nazis. You would still be wrong but at least you would have some basis for argument.

Click to expand...

In the case of IS, Al Qaeda, Al-Shabaab, Boko Haram etc. I think you're absolutely right. But as for some of them, the Hezbollah and PLO for example they do have some validity in the cause they're fighting for is justified. Much of their methods are heinous and repulsive but their fight is technically, morally and legally justified. I abhor and certainly don't condone the means by which they fight but their fight for the liberation of their territory is absolutely justified.
The resistance movements of WWII were not all that nice either, particularly not on the eastern front, but even the French did things that would be considered terrorism today, such as executing accused collaborators/spies and and attacking targets with little regard for collateral damage. There's also the events known as "épuration sauvage" which was a wave of popular convictions, summary executions and general humiliation of accused collaborators with little to no regard for evidence or anything even remotely resembling any sort of legal procedure and had more than a passing similarity to some of the killings IS does in towns/cities they capture.
So it's not all completely black or white, While the Resistances of WWII were mostly good they were not all good and in fact did some pretty bad things, which we generally tend to forget because of how overshadowingly Bad Nazi Germany was.

Ceewan said:

What is done is done, let it go. I did enjoy the digression but I have done the best I care to make my case and I too will "let go". You are welcome to have the last word if you wish but I am done here. It has been fun.

Click to expand...

Well I did feel the need to reply to some of the counterpoints you made to clarify my position as to why I do consider that some of the obvious terrorist organisations while their methods/means are abominable their cause is justified, it may have been a little long winded but it's a complex question. But past that I don't mind dropping it here(we're unlikely to convince each other even if we went on for another 10 pages), and yes it's been fun

ShogunXXX said:

Mar. 03, 2015

TOKYO —

The Japanese government on Monday shrugged off renewed calls from South Korean President Park Geun-Hye to apologise to former wartime sex slaves, saying Tokyo hoped Seoul would change its views.

“We have explained our position many times. We want to continue our diplomatic efforts so that our view will be understood,” said Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga.

The comment came in reaction to Park’s weekend call for Japan to resolve issues surrounding women being pressed into sexually serving Japanese troops during World War II.

Mainstream historians say up to 200,000 women, mainly from Korea but also from China, Indonesia and other Asian nations, were forced into sexual slavery during the war.

Tokyo has maintained that a 1965 treaty with Seoul, signed when the two nations normalised relations after the war, solved all outstanding issues and has rebuffed calls for separate compensation for so-called “comfort women”.

Japan has issued formal apologies over their suffering and offered financial compensation to victims via a non-government group, but Seoul maintains it is not contrite enough.

Bilateral ties have become further strained in recent months as Japanese nationalists have expanded campaigns to assert that the brothels were run by pimps and shadowy operators in the private sector, and that the Japanese military neither tricked nor enslaved the women.

Critics say Seoul uses the issue to galvanise public opinion and focus irritation on Japan, instead of whatever is happening at home.

Seoul-Tokyo ties have been icy for years, chiefly over differing interpretations of their shared history.

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and Park have not met for a formal two-way summit since they took power in 2012 and 2013 respectively, raising concerns over the partnership between the two main US military allies in Asia.

Click to expand...

The only people who have any business apologizing are those who authorized the atrocities and those who committed them. Most of them are dead and those who are still alive most likely are in old folks home with Alzheimers or some other elderly person disease. This lets apologize for shit that happened a long time ago by people who are most likely not around around any more is for the birds.Occasionally people in our government do this nonsense of lets apologize for slavery, bombing this or that or what happened to the indians. Politicians represent the people they serve,so anything they do they do so in the name of the people.So when a politician apologizes for a past transgression it is you that is the one really apologizing, not the politician in office.

Japan has already apologized many times and gave enough reparations...

Something as simple as visiting the Japanese equivalent of Arlington cemetery by the head of state for solemnly commemorating Japan's war casualties is enough to cause riots in SK and CN.

Why can't S.Korea and China just move on?

other countries in Asia such as Philippines, Vietnam & Indonesia already "moved" on

I think the problem is not that they commemorating Japan's war casualties. The problem is that also a lot of the people who are to blame for many things are on this cemetery. I guess no one in SK and CN cares if there would be only civilians.

And it seems that there is a difference between how Japan apologized and how e.g. Germany did it. I don't hear anything about problems between Germany and its neighbours (okay, maybe one exception is Greek at the moment, but that is a different story). Maybe it is because Germany, e.g., still holds court cases against the responsible persons from back then. Haven't heard anything like that about Japan (okay, maybe they do it, but I simply not aware of it).