Jews aren't a race; they are a religion. Frankly, I despise Mormonism as a religion far more than I despise Judaism, for the same reason. Never trust a religion that thinks of the rest of us as "gentiles", while they have a special relationship with the imaginary sky pixie.
If you had the ability to comprehend my posts, you'd get that anti-religion is pretty much a running theme. Humanity will be far better of when it realizes IT'S the higher power, and it doesn't need to grovel.
As for a "Zionist Conspiracy", a conspiracy works on the assumption that they are doing it in secret. They aren't. AIPAC yells "Jump", and our cowardly congressmen all say, "How high". College kids protest genocide, and the Jews get colleges to muzzle them and deport them.
Thank you for once again repeating your bigotry and your parroting of neo-Nazi/Hamas/ISIS/Hezbollah propaganda about Jews and Israel. I just wanted to quote it to put it on display again.
Now is a good time to consider Justice Radhabinod Pal’s defense of General Iwane Matsui, the commanding general of the Japanese force that attacked Nanking.
It is now widely recognized that the Tokyo Tribunal, officially known as the International Military Tribunal for the Far East (IMTFE), was a severe display of “victor’s justice,” that it in key respects it resembled a bloodthirsty kangaroo court. The 2016 miniseries
Tokyo Trial, available on Netflix, gives you some idea of how unfair and biased the tribunal was, but the IMTFE was even worse than the miniseries portrays.
Two books that expose the unjust, bloodthirsty nature of the Tokyo Tribunal are Dr. Richard Minear’s
Victor’s Justice: The Tokyo War Crimes Trial (Princeton University Press, 1971) and Dr. Dayle Smith’s
Judicial Murder? MacArthur and the Tokyo War Crimes Trial (Envale Press, 2000).
Among the IMTFE justices, only Justice Pal voted not guilty on all counts and questioned the tribunal’s foundational assumptions. He wrote a massive dissent, over 1,000 pages in length, that is now widely recognized as one of the most masterful dissents in the history of international law and a clarion call against the excesses that can come from vengeance and propaganda.
Justice Bert Roling of Holland recognized some of the gross injustices of the Tokyo Tribunal’s verdicts in his dissent, but he voted guilty in most cases. Justice Pal was the only judge who voted not guilty on all counts.
Justice Pal’s dissent included a lengthy defense of General Matsui. He argued that the evidence showed that General Matsui did not order or condone the crimes that were committed in Nanking, and that he took reasonable steps to stop them and to punish the offenders. Here is his defense of Matsui:
Accused General Matsui was the Commander-in-Chief of the Central China Area Army which was responsible for the Nanking fall. He returned to Tokyo in February 1938 when General Hata replaced him on 17 February 1938.
On August 15, 1937 General Matsui was appointed Commander of the Japanese Expeditionary Forces to Shanghai. On November 5 of the same year, the Imperial General Headquarters combined the then existing expeditionary forces to Shanghai and the Tenth Army to form the Central China Area Army, and appointed General Matsui to be its commander-in-chief.
It was the duty assigned to the Central China Area to be over the headquarters of the Expeditionary Forces and of the Tenth Army, and unify the command of both armies. The duty consisted in co-ordination of a joint operation of both headquarters, the actual management and command of army strength being conducted by the commanding officers of each army. In each of the headquarters besides the staffs and the adjutants, there were the ordinance department, the medical department, the judicial department etc. But in the headquarters of the Central China Area Army there were no such personnel. (Exh. 2,577, R.P.38,900)
The Imperial General Headquarters issued on December 1, to the Central China Area Army an order to attack Nanking in concert with the Navy. On December 5, the headquarter of Central China Area Army moved to Soochow, 140 miles away from Nanking. General Matsui was then ill but he took action on important matters in his sick bed having consultation with his staff. (Exh. 341)
On December 7, another commander was appointed for the Expeditionary Forces to Shanghai. So, after this date, General MATSUI was the Commander-in-Chief of the Central China Area Army which comprised the Tenth Army under one Commander and Expeditionary Forces to Shanghai under another Commander. Before carrying out the order of Supreme Headquarters to attack Nanking, General Matsui issued orders to the Japanese Forces to the following effect:
"That Nanking was the capitol of China and the capture thereof was an international affair; that therefore, careful study should be made so as to exhibit the honour and glory of Japan and augment the trust of the Chinese people. and that the battle in the vicinity of Shanghai is aimed at the subjugation of the Chinese Army, therefore protect and patronize Chinese officials and people, as far as possible; that the Anny should always bear in mind not to in volve foreign residents and armies in trouble and maintain close liaison with foreign authorities in order to avoid misunderstandings....”
Whereupon the Chief of Staff of the Expeditionary Forces, INUMA, and others, immediately transmitted the above-mentioned orders to all officers and men under General Matsui's command. The Chief of Staff of Central China Area Army, Tsukada, and six staff officers under him, prepared an order to the following effect:
1. The Central China Area Army intends to capture Nanking Castle.
2. The Shanghai Expeditionary Forces and the Tenth Army shall capture Nanking in accordance with the main points as to the capture of Nanking.
The main points, in the order as to the capture of Nanking, referred to above, were set out as follows:
1. Both Armies (Shanghai Expeditionary Forces and the Tenth Army) shall stop and prepare for capture of Nanking at the point 3 or 4 kilometers away from Nanking Castle when they so far advance.
2. On December 9th, scatter from airplanes, the bills advising surrender of the Chinese Army, stationed within the Castle of Nanking.
3. In case of surrender of the Chinese Army, only the two or three battalions, chosen from among the various divisions and military police, shall enter the castle and guard the assigned area within the castle as indicated in the map. Especially, perfectly carry out the protection of foreign interests and cultural facilities, as indicated on the map.
4. In case of the Chinese Army refusing to surrender, begin attack against Nanking Castle on the afternoon of December 10. Even in this case, the movements of the troops that enter the castle shall be the same as described above, especially making military discipline and morality very strict and restoring peace within the castle.
Simultaneously with the preparation of the above-mentioned order, an instruction was formulated under the head "Matters to be Borne in Mind regarding Capture of and Entry into Nanking Castle." The substance thereof was as follows:
1. Entry of the Imperial Army into a foreign capital is a great event in our history and one that is to be perpetuated in history, attracting the attention of the world. Therefore, let no unit enter the city disorderly. Let the various units of ours be careful not to shoot one another; and above all let them be absolutely free from unlawful deeds.
2. Let the discipline and morality of every unit be especially strict thereby earning the respect and submission of the Chinese Army for the imposing air of the Imperial Army; and insure that no act whatsoever, which tends to disgrace honour, be perpetrated.
3. Absolutely observe off-limits of zone of neutrality especially established by the foreign diplomatic corps, except for cases of necessity, disposing sentry on needed points, to say nothing of absolutely refraining from encroaching upon foreign rights and interests in accordance with the map shown elsewhere. Besides, entry into Chungshan Mausoleum and the cemetery of other Revolutionary heroes as well as the Mausoleum of Emperor Hsiao, Ming Dy nasty, is strictly prohibited.
4. The units to enter the Castle shall be the one especially chosen for that purpose by the division commanders concerned; let them know beforehand the matters to be remembered and the positions of foreign rights and interests in the Castle; let them be absolutely free from plunder; dispose sentry, if needed.
5. Plundering and causing fires, even carelessly, shall be punished severely. Together with the troops, let many military police and auxiliary police enter the Castle, and thereby prevent unlawful conduct.
On December 17, General Matsui entered Nanking and learned from reports that, notwithstanding his strict warning, there were breaches of military discipline and morality. He ordered strict compliance with his former orders and removal of the troops in the Castle to the region outside the Castle. Tsukada, Chief of Staff, and his subordinate staff officers, investigated the quartering capacity in the region outside of the Castle but found that the region concerned was unfit for quartering troops. (Exh. 2,577)
On December 19, therefore, the Tenth Army was sent back to the Wuho area of the Shanghai Expeditionary Forces. The 16th Division, alone, was assigned to remain in Nanking for guard duty and the other units were ordered to evacuate, one after another, to the northern shore of the Yangtze and Shanghai area. (Exh. 3,454)
After the General had returned to Shanghai with his staff officers, he again heard rumours of the unlawful acts of the Japanese Army in Nanking. On hearing this, he ordered a staff officer to transmit the following instruction to the Chief of Staff of the Expeditionary Force to Shanghai on the 26th or the 27th of December:
“It is rumoured that illegal acts are being committed in Nanking by Japanese troops. As I gave instructions on the occasion of the entry ceremony into Nanking, no such acts should be taken under any circumstances for the honour of the Japanese Army. Especially, because Prince Asaka is our Commander, military discipline and morals must be even more strictly maintained. Anyone who would misconduct himself must severely be punished. As for damage done, measures should be taken that they may be compensated or returned." (Exh. 2,577)
The steps thus taken by General Matsui proved ineffective. But there is no suggestion that these were in any way insincere. On this evidence, I cannot ascribe any deliberate and reckless disregard of legal duty on the part of General Matsui in this respect. The Prosecution lays stress on the fact that there was an inadequate number of punishments in this case.
As I have pointed out above, a commander in-chief is entitled to rely on the efficient functioning of the machinery sup plied for the purpose of enforcing discipline in the army. The army certainly was provided with personnel whose function it was to prosecute the offenders. It is in evidence that this part of the machinery did function.
I do not believe that it is the function or duty of a commander-in-chief to proceed to prosecute such offenders. There were rumours and reports of atrocities coming to the commander-in-chief. He adequately expressed his disapproval, and he was entitled thereafter to rely on the two commanders of the two armies as also on the other high officials charged with the duty of maintaining discipline and meting out justice.
We must also remember that General Matsui was ill at that time and was relieved of his duty within a few weeks of these occurrences.
The position of a commander-in-chief of any army would be intolerable if he be not allowed, even for such a short period, to wait and see whether the machinery is adequately functioning. In my judgment, the evidence does not disclose any such inaction on his part as would entitle us to hold him criminally liable for what happened at Nanking in respect of the civilian population. (Dissentient Judgment of Justice Pal, pp. 631-634)
www.britannica.com
