Well, here are the video links for those who still havnt seen them.
video leak on YouTube of Chinese trawler incident.
- Thread starter kwaigonegin
- Start date
bladerunner
Banned Idiot
I was referring to the first incident. I provided a link to it in Post9. Its also got some time stamps inserted into it to show the elapsed time between the two incidents, (about 40mins roughly) i suspect it was done by the submitter to youtube.and being made by a fervent japanese nationalist, you have got to be prepared for some unsavoury comments.
solarz
Brigadier
Both the timestamp and the mangled chinese do not seem very authentic. They could very well have been added to the video.
Pointblank
Senior Member
You can get a lawyer for pro bono or from legal aid. And such a lawyer could A: get his the ship released, and B: sue for damages.
bluewater2012
Junior Member
Okay, I watched the six videos above on youtube. Based on what I observed, the Japanese patrol boat were circling around the trailer, and stopped right in front of it while the trailer kept on going and rammed the back of the patrol boat (assuming, assuming the trailer captain thought the patrol boat would move away when it went across but didn't hence the crash (could be other factor such as deliberate attack, or miscalculation on the trailer captain fault). One wrong for the Chinese (also a wrong for the Japanese if you count cutting in front of the trailer so closely and not moving away when it's too late -intimidate).
Then... onto the second incident. You can clearly see this was a ploy laid by the Japanese patrol boat (after failing to stop the ship after the crash), doing the same trick, but this time, at a much faster pace at an angle that the trailer can't even escape the crash. So, this time fault on the Japanese.
To sum it up, both are wrong, but the initial crash fault lies with the Japanese stopping their boat on the path of the Chinese trawler inviting an avoidable collision.
Not legally, the EU sent their own navy and disputed the charges because they were made unilaterally by Canada.
Also I am not saying the trawler shouldn't stop, they just don't have to heed orders from the Japanese navy. If the Japanese fired warning shots then I agree the trawler should stop on threat of force, this will be treated as a case of piracy(or something similar) and PLAN will mobilize to deal directly with the Japanese navy.
In this forum, we have be seeing alot of finger pointing at the Japanese side. Forgive me from saying this (don't flame me later on), that we should not just be looking at the Chinese side and said that the sole faults lies with the Japanese.
As we are know and agreed upon that the water are disputed water, both China (and Taiwan) and Japan claimed it. So the Chinese are moving in the water as if it was theirs (to them, they are in their own turf). The Japanese are patrolling that area as if it was their territory too.
As far as I am concern and I believe was the same case as many of the forum mates here, we do not know the doctrine of the Japanese. It might be their usual practice or standard procedure to circle around the suspect ship or boat and/or cut infront of the boat to force a stop. in order for the coast guards to board the ship. So with this light, the Japanese CG couldn't be faulted.
The main thing here is we have to keep a open mind when viewing this incident. There is no plot or sinister happening here, it is a pure incident or accident. The Chinese thinks that they are in their own water minding their own business, but the Japanese thinks that the Chinese are invading into their territorial water and so the later incidents.
What was at play is nothing but pure politics. The trawler captain was capture and was to be charge using Japanese local law. However since the captain captured in disputed water whereby the Chinese also claimed, so China would never agreed to the fact that their people are captured in China homeground (local water) and taken to a foreign land and charge under the foreign rule. If China make no noise at all... it would only mean that they accept Diaoyutai as Japanese land and not Chinese.
Likewise, Japanese claim that Senkuko was Japanese and so their CG might just be following SOP that resulted in the collision, and it is perfectly normal for them to take the intruder back to be charged. if they didn't do it... they might be agreeing that they have no rights to these islands.
As we are know and agreed upon that the water are disputed water, both China (and Taiwan) and Japan claimed it. So the Chinese are moving in the water as if it was theirs (to them, they are in their own turf). The Japanese are patrolling that area as if it was their territory too.
As far as I am concern and I believe was the same case as many of the forum mates here, we do not know the doctrine of the Japanese. It might be their usual practice or standard procedure to circle around the suspect ship or boat and/or cut infront of the boat to force a stop. in order for the coast guards to board the ship. So with this light, the Japanese CG couldn't be faulted.
The main thing here is we have to keep a open mind when viewing this incident. There is no plot or sinister happening here, it is a pure incident or accident. The Chinese thinks that they are in their own water minding their own business, but the Japanese thinks that the Chinese are invading into their territorial water and so the later incidents.
What was at play is nothing but pure politics. The trawler captain was capture and was to be charge using Japanese local law. However since the captain captured in disputed water whereby the Chinese also claimed, so China would never agreed to the fact that their people are captured in China homeground (local water) and taken to a foreign land and charge under the foreign rule. If China make no noise at all... it would only mean that they accept Diaoyutai as Japanese land and not Chinese.
Likewise, Japanese claim that Senkuko was Japanese and so their CG might just be following SOP that resulted in the collision, and it is perfectly normal for them to take the intruder back to be charged. if they didn't do it... they might be agreeing that they have no rights to these islands.
Pointblank
Senior Member
Nope, the Europeans did not send their navy; it stayed tied up at port. And the EU dropped its case after the ICJ refused to hear their case. Furthermore, the Federal Court of Canada rejected the claim from the Estai's owners that Canada acted illegally in the seizure of the Estai. That legally set a precedent.
solarz
Brigadier
If you look at one of their banners: "Denunciation of invasion in Senkaku Islands". This is the kind of statement that destroys any credibility that they have a legitimate grievance.
Nevermind to whom Diaoyutai belongs to, it is currently patrolled by the Japanese. China has only demanded the return of its citizen. How is that supposed to be an invasion??
