超级军网日媒：莫迪声称不会忘记主张甲级战犯无罪的印度法官
来源：百度文库 编辑：超级军网 时间：2024/04/27 22:39:53
据日本共同社9月2日报道，印度总理莫迪1日晚在东京迎宾馆出席日本首相安倍晋三主持的晚宴时提及了在东京审判中主张所有甲级战犯无罪的已故印度法官巴尔，称“日本人对他非常尊敬。他在东京审判中发挥的作用谁都不会忘记”。
安倍高度评价巴尔的业绩，2007年他访问印度时曾与巴尔的长子会面。安倍在历史认识问题上饱受中韩两国指责，莫迪的上述发言在一定程度上照顾到了安倍的立场。
莫迪在与安倍正式会谈时也提及了巴尔，对巴尔获得日方的高度评价表示了好感。
http://news.ifeng.com/a/20140902/41829332_0.shtml
巴尔.jpg (81.19 KB, 下载次数: 0)
下载附件 保存到相册
印度法官巴尔在靖国神社中的石碑
据日本共同社9月2日报道，印度总理莫迪1日晚在东京迎宾馆出席日本首相安倍晋三主持的晚宴时提及了在东京审判中主张所有甲级战犯无罪的已故印度法官巴尔，称“日本人对他非常尊敬。他在东京审判中发挥的作用谁都不会忘记”。
安倍高度评价巴尔的业绩，2007年他访问印度时曾与巴尔的长子会面。安倍在历史认识问题上饱受中韩两国指责，莫迪的上述发言在一定程度上照顾到了安倍的立场。
莫迪在与安倍正式会谈时也提及了巴尔，对巴尔获得日方的高度评价表示了好感。
http://news.ifeng.com/a/20140902/41829332_0.shtml
狼狈为奸 狗熊相惜
魔笛，你现在记住了那个逗比法官，将来更会记住审判你的法官~~
日本媒体报道的是否是真的呢
看来社科院那个专家说得没错，印度这种傻子必需充分的把它搞残。没有希望的地方。
2014-9-2 12:34 上传
看来莫迪是只有手腕没有原则了
其实他们该说钱德拉鲍斯……
狼狈为奸！
正义必胜！
正义必胜！
是安背鬼说不是莫迪说，莫迪怎么会知道倭人的想法，上街做过调查？
也好，可以快点打掉中国对墓地的单相思
鬼子媒体不可信，意淫成分太多。
不要脸，五亿美元贷款就让良心变黑
从希特勒到东条英机，都有很好的理念，不坐不死。墓地你爹知道吗
lbqsv 发表于 2014-9-2 12:50
狼狈为奸！
正义必胜！
日本人客观上推动了战后印度的独立，印度人为日本说话也在情理之中吧。
至于扯什么正义不正义，别国之间合作就是“狼狈为奸”的就太幼稚了，国家关系只有利益
狼狈为奸！
正义必胜！
日本人客观上推动了战后印度的独立，印度人为日本说话也在情理之中吧。
至于扯什么正义不正义，别国之间合作就是“狼狈为奸”的就太幼稚了，国家关系只有利益
莫迪在与安倍正式会谈时也提及了巴尔，对巴尔获得日方的高度评价表示了好感。
文中只有这句话.何来标题中的话 莫迪声称不会忘记主张甲级战犯无罪的印度法官
文中只有这句话.何来标题中的话 莫迪声称不会忘记主张甲级战犯无罪的印度法官
还有这样的法官！！
问问楼上诸位，你们恨德国法西斯吗？
小贝壳 发表于 2014-9-2 13:03
问问楼上诸位，你们恨德国法西斯吗？
好像真的只有一点点恨。。。瀑布汗！
问问楼上诸位，你们恨德国法西斯吗？
好像真的只有一点点恨。。。瀑布汗！
显然，那个阿三法官没被日军俘虏过，也没遭到过非人虐待，没被拉去做人体试验，他的妻子和女儿也没强征慰安妇…… 假如都经历过，他还是说 甲级战犯无罪！ 那这个人将媲美甘地，甚至可以作当代耶稣
显然，那个阿三法官没被日军俘虏过，也没遭到过非人虐待，没被拉去做人体试验，他的妻子和女儿也没强征慰 ...
简单的说这个法官不是人
简单的说这个法官不是人
小贝壳 发表于 2014-9-2 13:03
问问楼上诸位，你们恨德国法西斯吗？
问委员长，他跟纳粹德国有一点基情
问问楼上诸位，你们恨德国法西斯吗？
问委员长，他跟纳粹德国有一点基情
日本人无耻的投降了，现在拼命否认历史。希特勒最起码战斗最后自杀，后人勇敢承认责任。日本人在人类历史上写下了最不要脸的一笔！
很好，我本来还担心高铁基建支援了阿三，现在可以放心了。这种白痴一样的东西，等着2028年人口自爆吧！
好像真的只有一点点恨。。。瀑布汗！
所以嘛，站在不同的立场说不同的话。
所以嘛，站在不同的立场说不同的话。
如果是真的，穆迪这个人似乎没有什么底线。 比较适合买办。
小贝壳 发表于 2014-9-2 13:03
问问楼上诸位，你们恨德国法西斯吗？
不恨，但是知道这不是什么好玩意。
大方向也不会支持这种东西。
问问楼上诸位，你们恨德国法西斯吗？
不恨，但是知道这不是什么好玩意。
大方向也不会支持这种东西。
kdstz 发表于 2014-9-2 13:19
日本人无耻的投降了，现在拼命否认历史。希特勒最起码战斗最后自杀，后人勇敢承认责任。日本人在人类历史上 ...
美英法苏都在他地面驻军，他敢不承认吗
日本人无耻的投降了，现在拼命否认历史。希特勒最起码战斗最后自杀，后人勇敢承认责任。日本人在人类历史上 ...
美英法苏都在他地面驻军，他敢不承认吗
也好，可以快点打掉中国对墓地的单相思
中国对墓地单相思？你怎么看出来的
中国对墓地单相思？你怎么看出来的
亚洲两大邪恶轴心
J5J6J7J8 发表于 2014-9-2 12:29
看来社科院那个专家说得没错，印度这种傻子必需充分的把它搞残。没有希望的地方。
求个视频链接
看来社科院那个专家说得没错，印度这种傻子必需充分的把它搞残。没有希望的地方。
求个视频链接
日媒，，，，，，，，，，
唧唧复唧唧，阿三造飞机。
机翼缺铆钉，机身没涂漆，
雷达装不下，航电太垃圾。
年年没造好，服役遥无期。
昨夜见新闻，威龙在试飞。
堂堂我三哥，竟用LCA。(可以改成 堂堂阿三哥，还在等光辉。)
战机太落后，害我没面子。
愿造五代机，干掉死兔子。
鹰国买雷达，牛国买精钢，鸡国买航电，熊国买座舱。毛子来设计，三哥来组装。
不见飞机上蓝天，但见引擎失火冒黑烟。
三锅不要怕，重新造一架。不见机机能飞翔, 但见起飞失败摔路旁。
阿三已死心，痛哭又涕零，找到大毛熊，诉苦又求情：“大哥求求您，俺要T五零。”
毛熊很欢乐，准备坑三锅。三锅天然呆，人傻钱又多。
毛熊问所欲，三哥愿出一千亿，买它百来架，吓吓种花家。
鹰酱闻此事，制裁大毛忙，欧萌闻此事，跟着鹰酱狂，兔子闻此事，漫不经心继续玩。
造我六代机，建我五二D，产我核航母，修我大炸逼。潜心搞科研。甭管傻阿三。
毛货一直摔，三锅很受伤。买了几十年，不知毛子是奸商。
阿三脑发热，毛熊没道德，两厢都情愿，坑他十次又如何？
=============================================================
补充回复: 鬼子闻此事，心知长别离。徘徊庭树下，自挂东南枝。
机翼缺铆钉，机身没涂漆，
雷达装不下，航电太垃圾。
年年没造好，服役遥无期。
昨夜见新闻，威龙在试飞。
堂堂我三哥，竟用LCA。(可以改成 堂堂阿三哥，还在等光辉。)
战机太落后，害我没面子。
愿造五代机，干掉死兔子。
鹰国买雷达，牛国买精钢，鸡国买航电，熊国买座舱。毛子来设计，三哥来组装。
不见飞机上蓝天，但见引擎失火冒黑烟。
三锅不要怕，重新造一架。不见机机能飞翔, 但见起飞失败摔路旁。
阿三已死心，痛哭又涕零，找到大毛熊，诉苦又求情：“大哥求求您，俺要T五零。”
毛熊很欢乐，准备坑三锅。三锅天然呆，人傻钱又多。
毛熊问所欲，三哥愿出一千亿，买它百来架，吓吓种花家。
鹰酱闻此事，制裁大毛忙，欧萌闻此事，跟着鹰酱狂，兔子闻此事，漫不经心继续玩。
造我六代机，建我五二D，产我核航母，修我大炸逼。潜心搞科研。甭管傻阿三。
毛货一直摔，三锅很受伤。买了几十年，不知毛子是奸商。
阿三脑发热，毛熊没道德，两厢都情愿，坑他十次又如何？
=============================================================
补充回复: 鬼子闻此事，心知长别离。徘徊庭树下，自挂东南枝。
日媒这今年节操没少掉……但若是真的，看里莫迪政治才能不够成熟=_=
哪能怎样？。。。。。。。。。。
我國得比照以國態度，質問穆狄，發言人要有情緒，不要像殭屍唸乾稿，要能代表民族的洶涌怒火。
拉达宾诺德·巴尔（1886年1月27日－1967年1月10日，印地語：राधाबिनोद पाल 、拉丁化：Radha Binod Pal）是印度的法律學者、律師。他是远东国际军事法庭印度代表.
在1946年在東京的遠東國際軍事法庭判刑中，巴尔認為是次裁決是不公平的，他寫下了數十萬字的判詞，他認為這只是勝利者對戰敗者審判，他的最終判決所有十一名甲級戰犯沒有罪。
Justice Radha Binod Pal (27 January 1886 – 10 January 1967) was an Indian jurist. He was the Indian member appointed to the International Military Tribunal for the Far East's trials of Japanese war crimes committed during the second World War. Among all the judges of the tribunal, he was the only one who submitted a judgment which insisted all defendants were not guilty. The Yasukuni Shrine and the Kyoto Ryozen Gokoku Shrine has monuments specially dedicated to Justice Pal.
Justice Radhabinod Pal was born in 1886 in a small village called 'Salimpur' under 'Taragunia' union of 'Daulatpur' Upazilla of Kushtia District of East Bengal in British India (present day Bangladesh).
He studied mathematics and constitutional law at Presidency College, Calcutta (now Kolkata), and the Law College of the University of Calcutta. He worked as professor at the Law College of the University of Calcutta from 1923 till 1936. He became a judge of Calcutta High Court in 1941 and Vice Chancellor of the University of Calcutta in 1944. The Indian government installed him as a legal adviser in 1927 and dispatched him to the Tokyo Trials in 1946. He delivered one of the three dissenting opinions of the Tribunal. He found all the defendants not guilty of Class A war crimes, even though he condemned the Japanese war-time conduct as "devilish and fiendish". He was highly critical of conspiracy and he was unable to apply such a new crime as waging aggressive wars and committing crimes against peace and humanity—Class A war crimes created by the Allies after the war—ex post facto. His reasoning influenced the dissenting opinions of the judges for the Netherlands and France.
Following the war-crimes trials, he was elected to the United Nations' International Law Commission, where he served from 1952 to 1966.
He is the father of renowned barrister, late Pranab Kumar Pal and the father-in-law of renowned lawyer Dr. Debi Prasad Pal.
War Crimes Trial Dissent[edit]
While finding that 'the evidence is still overwhelming that atrocities were perpetrated by the members of the Japanese armed forces against the civilian population of some of the territories occupied by them as also against the prisoners of war', he produced a judgment questioning the legitimacy of the tribunal and its rulings. He held the view that the legitimacy of the tribunal was suspect and questionable, because the spirit of retribution, and not impartial justice, was the underlying criterion for passing the judgment.
He concluded:
"I would hold that every one of the accused must be found not guilty of every one of the charges in the indictment and should be acquitted on all those charges."
Pal never intended to offer a juridical argument on whether a sentence of not guilty would have been a correct one. However, he argued that the United States had clearly provoked the war with Japan and expected Japan to act (Zinn, 411).
Pal believed that the Tokyo Trial was incapable of passing a just sentence. He considered the trial to be unjust and unreasonable, contributing nothing to lasting peace. According to his view, the trial was the judgment of the vanquished by the victors; such proceedings, even if clothed in the garb of law, resulted in nothing but the satisfaction of the desire for vengeance. In his lone dissent, he refers to the trial as a "sham employment of legal process for the satisfaction of a thirst for revenge." According to Norimitsu Onishi, while he fully acknowledged Japan’s war atrocities — including the Nanjing massacre — he said they were covered in the Class B and Class C trials.[1]
Furthermore, he believed that the exclusion of Western colonialism and the use of the atom bomb by the United States from the list of crimes, and judges from the vanquished nations on the bench, signified the "failure of the Tribunal to provide anything other than the opportunity for the victors to retaliate." [2] In this he was not alone among Indian jurists of the time, one prominent Calcutta barrister writing that the Tribunal was little more than "a sword in a wig". Fear of American nuclear power was an international phenomenon following the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Judge Pal's typewritten book-length opposition to the decision was formally prohibited from publication by the Occupation forces and was released in 1952 after the occupation ended and a treaty recognizing the legitimacy of the Tokyo Trials was signed by Japan. Pal's publication had also been prohibited in Great Britain, and it remained unpublished in the United States as well.[citation needed] However, a portion of his "original" judgment and copies of the original text in modern editions are available for sale online.
The American occupation of Japan ended in 1952, after Tokyo signed the San Francisco Peace Treaty and accepted the Tokyo trials' verdict. The end of the occupation also lifted a ban on the publication of Judge Pal’s 1,235-page dissent, which Japanese nationalists used as the basis of their argument that the Tokyo trials were biased.[1][3][4]
Political background[edit]
Pal's lone dissenting opinion, that the Japanese soldiers were only following orders and that the acts committed by them weren't illegal in an indictable sense, was dismissed by the West as a biased judgement by another Asian judge. Pal wrote that the Tokyo Trials were an exercise in victor's justice and that the Allies were equally culpable in acts such as strategic bombings of civilian targets. In 1966, Pal visited Japan and said that he had admired Japan from an early age for being the only Asian nation that "stood up against the West". In spite of his personal opinions about Japan, he deemed it appropriate to dissent from the judgement of his "learned brothers" to embody his love for absolute truth and justice.[3]
Significance in Indo-Japanese relations[edit]
Monument of Radha Binod Pal at Kyoto Ryozen Gokoku Shrine.
Further information: Indo-Japanese relations
In 1966, the Emperor of Japan conferred upon Pal the First Class of the Order of the Sacred Treasure. Pal is revered by Japanese nationalists and a monument dedicated to him stands on the grounds of the Yasukuni Shrine.[5] The monument was erected after Pal's death.
Judge Pal's dissent is frequently mentioned by Indian diplomats and political leaders in the context of Indo-Japanese friendship and solidarity. For example, on 29 April 2005 Prime Minister Manmohan Singh referred to it as follows, in his remarks at a banquet in New Delhi in honor of the visiting Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi:
"It is a noteworthy fact that though we have gone through various phases in our relationship, in times of difficulty, we have stood by each other. It is important to recall that India refused to attend the San Francisco Peace Conference in 1951 and signed a separate Peace Treaty with Japan in 1952".[6] This, Pandit Nehru felt, gave to Japan a proper position of honour and equality among the community of free nations. In that Peace Treaty, India waived all reparation claims against Japan. The dissenting judgement of Justice Radhabinod Pal is well-known to the Japanese people and will always symbolize the affection and regard our people have for your country."[7]
On December 14, 2006, Singh, made a speech in the Japanese Diet. He stated:
"The principled judgment of Justice Radhabinod Pal after the War is remembered even today in Japan. Ladies and Gentlemen, these events reflect the depth of our friendship and the fact that we have stood by each other at critical moments in our history."[8]
On August 23, 2007, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe met with Pal's son, Prasanta, in Kolkata, during his day long visit to the city. Prasanta Pal, now an octogenarian, presented prime minister Abe with four photographs of his father, of which two photographs were of Radhabinod Pal with Nobusuke Kishi. They chatted for half an hour at a city hotel. [9]
Quotes[edit]
"Questions of law are not decided in an intellectual quarantine area in which legal doctrine and the local history of the dispute alone are retained and all else is forcibly excluded. We cannot afford to be ignorant of the world in which disputes arise."
"Even contemporary historians could think that 'as for the present war, the Principality of Monaco, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, would have taken up arms against the United States on receipt of such a note (Hull note[10]) as the State Department sent the Japanese Government on the eve of Pearl Harbor.'"
"When time shall have softened passion and prejudice, when Reason shall have stripped the mask from misrepresentation, then Justice, holding evenly her scales, will require much of past censure and praise to change places," Pal quoted Jefferson Davis in the conclusion of the dissent.
"I might mention in this connection that even the published accounts of Nanking 'rape' could not be accepted by the world without some suspicion of exaggeration... Referring to the same incident, Sir Charles Addis on that occasion could say: 'Between two countries at war there was always a danger that one or other of the combatants would seek to turn public opinion in his favour by resort to a propaganda in which incidents, inseparable alas from all hostilities, were magnified and distorted for the express purpose of inflaming prejudice and passion and obscuring the real issues of the conflict.'" (page 606 of his Dissent)
在1946年在東京的遠東國際軍事法庭判刑中，巴尔認為是次裁決是不公平的，他寫下了數十萬字的判詞，他認為這只是勝利者對戰敗者審判，他的最終判決所有十一名甲級戰犯沒有罪。
Justice Radha Binod Pal (27 January 1886 – 10 January 1967) was an Indian jurist. He was the Indian member appointed to the International Military Tribunal for the Far East's trials of Japanese war crimes committed during the second World War. Among all the judges of the tribunal, he was the only one who submitted a judgment which insisted all defendants were not guilty. The Yasukuni Shrine and the Kyoto Ryozen Gokoku Shrine has monuments specially dedicated to Justice Pal.
Justice Radhabinod Pal was born in 1886 in a small village called 'Salimpur' under 'Taragunia' union of 'Daulatpur' Upazilla of Kushtia District of East Bengal in British India (present day Bangladesh).
He studied mathematics and constitutional law at Presidency College, Calcutta (now Kolkata), and the Law College of the University of Calcutta. He worked as professor at the Law College of the University of Calcutta from 1923 till 1936. He became a judge of Calcutta High Court in 1941 and Vice Chancellor of the University of Calcutta in 1944. The Indian government installed him as a legal adviser in 1927 and dispatched him to the Tokyo Trials in 1946. He delivered one of the three dissenting opinions of the Tribunal. He found all the defendants not guilty of Class A war crimes, even though he condemned the Japanese war-time conduct as "devilish and fiendish". He was highly critical of conspiracy and he was unable to apply such a new crime as waging aggressive wars and committing crimes against peace and humanity—Class A war crimes created by the Allies after the war—ex post facto. His reasoning influenced the dissenting opinions of the judges for the Netherlands and France.
Following the war-crimes trials, he was elected to the United Nations' International Law Commission, where he served from 1952 to 1966.
He is the father of renowned barrister, late Pranab Kumar Pal and the father-in-law of renowned lawyer Dr. Debi Prasad Pal.
War Crimes Trial Dissent[edit]
While finding that 'the evidence is still overwhelming that atrocities were perpetrated by the members of the Japanese armed forces against the civilian population of some of the territories occupied by them as also against the prisoners of war', he produced a judgment questioning the legitimacy of the tribunal and its rulings. He held the view that the legitimacy of the tribunal was suspect and questionable, because the spirit of retribution, and not impartial justice, was the underlying criterion for passing the judgment.
He concluded:
"I would hold that every one of the accused must be found not guilty of every one of the charges in the indictment and should be acquitted on all those charges."
Pal never intended to offer a juridical argument on whether a sentence of not guilty would have been a correct one. However, he argued that the United States had clearly provoked the war with Japan and expected Japan to act (Zinn, 411).
Pal believed that the Tokyo Trial was incapable of passing a just sentence. He considered the trial to be unjust and unreasonable, contributing nothing to lasting peace. According to his view, the trial was the judgment of the vanquished by the victors; such proceedings, even if clothed in the garb of law, resulted in nothing but the satisfaction of the desire for vengeance. In his lone dissent, he refers to the trial as a "sham employment of legal process for the satisfaction of a thirst for revenge." According to Norimitsu Onishi, while he fully acknowledged Japan’s war atrocities — including the Nanjing massacre — he said they were covered in the Class B and Class C trials.[1]
Furthermore, he believed that the exclusion of Western colonialism and the use of the atom bomb by the United States from the list of crimes, and judges from the vanquished nations on the bench, signified the "failure of the Tribunal to provide anything other than the opportunity for the victors to retaliate." [2] In this he was not alone among Indian jurists of the time, one prominent Calcutta barrister writing that the Tribunal was little more than "a sword in a wig". Fear of American nuclear power was an international phenomenon following the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Judge Pal's typewritten book-length opposition to the decision was formally prohibited from publication by the Occupation forces and was released in 1952 after the occupation ended and a treaty recognizing the legitimacy of the Tokyo Trials was signed by Japan. Pal's publication had also been prohibited in Great Britain, and it remained unpublished in the United States as well.[citation needed] However, a portion of his "original" judgment and copies of the original text in modern editions are available for sale online.
The American occupation of Japan ended in 1952, after Tokyo signed the San Francisco Peace Treaty and accepted the Tokyo trials' verdict. The end of the occupation also lifted a ban on the publication of Judge Pal’s 1,235-page dissent, which Japanese nationalists used as the basis of their argument that the Tokyo trials were biased.[1][3][4]
Political background[edit]
Pal's lone dissenting opinion, that the Japanese soldiers were only following orders and that the acts committed by them weren't illegal in an indictable sense, was dismissed by the West as a biased judgement by another Asian judge. Pal wrote that the Tokyo Trials were an exercise in victor's justice and that the Allies were equally culpable in acts such as strategic bombings of civilian targets. In 1966, Pal visited Japan and said that he had admired Japan from an early age for being the only Asian nation that "stood up against the West". In spite of his personal opinions about Japan, he deemed it appropriate to dissent from the judgement of his "learned brothers" to embody his love for absolute truth and justice.[3]
Significance in Indo-Japanese relations[edit]
Monument of Radha Binod Pal at Kyoto Ryozen Gokoku Shrine.
Further information: Indo-Japanese relations
In 1966, the Emperor of Japan conferred upon Pal the First Class of the Order of the Sacred Treasure. Pal is revered by Japanese nationalists and a monument dedicated to him stands on the grounds of the Yasukuni Shrine.[5] The monument was erected after Pal's death.
Judge Pal's dissent is frequently mentioned by Indian diplomats and political leaders in the context of Indo-Japanese friendship and solidarity. For example, on 29 April 2005 Prime Minister Manmohan Singh referred to it as follows, in his remarks at a banquet in New Delhi in honor of the visiting Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi:
"It is a noteworthy fact that though we have gone through various phases in our relationship, in times of difficulty, we have stood by each other. It is important to recall that India refused to attend the San Francisco Peace Conference in 1951 and signed a separate Peace Treaty with Japan in 1952".[6] This, Pandit Nehru felt, gave to Japan a proper position of honour and equality among the community of free nations. In that Peace Treaty, India waived all reparation claims against Japan. The dissenting judgement of Justice Radhabinod Pal is well-known to the Japanese people and will always symbolize the affection and regard our people have for your country."[7]
On December 14, 2006, Singh, made a speech in the Japanese Diet. He stated:
"The principled judgment of Justice Radhabinod Pal after the War is remembered even today in Japan. Ladies and Gentlemen, these events reflect the depth of our friendship and the fact that we have stood by each other at critical moments in our history."[8]
On August 23, 2007, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe met with Pal's son, Prasanta, in Kolkata, during his day long visit to the city. Prasanta Pal, now an octogenarian, presented prime minister Abe with four photographs of his father, of which two photographs were of Radhabinod Pal with Nobusuke Kishi. They chatted for half an hour at a city hotel. [9]
Quotes[edit]
"Questions of law are not decided in an intellectual quarantine area in which legal doctrine and the local history of the dispute alone are retained and all else is forcibly excluded. We cannot afford to be ignorant of the world in which disputes arise."
"Even contemporary historians could think that 'as for the present war, the Principality of Monaco, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, would have taken up arms against the United States on receipt of such a note (Hull note[10]) as the State Department sent the Japanese Government on the eve of Pearl Harbor.'"
"When time shall have softened passion and prejudice, when Reason shall have stripped the mask from misrepresentation, then Justice, holding evenly her scales, will require much of past censure and praise to change places," Pal quoted Jefferson Davis in the conclusion of the dissent.
"I might mention in this connection that even the published accounts of Nanking 'rape' could not be accepted by the world without some suspicion of exaggeration... Referring to the same incident, Sir Charles Addis on that occasion could say: 'Between two countries at war there was always a danger that one or other of the combatants would seek to turn public opinion in his favour by resort to a propaganda in which incidents, inseparable alas from all hostilities, were magnified and distorted for the express purpose of inflaming prejudice and passion and obscuring the real issues of the conflict.'" (page 606 of his Dissent)
印度的非高等种姓人都和罗姆人有亲缘关系吧～据说是同出自一个祖先呢～
如果印度那个法官是对的，那么天朝抗战时期几千万死难同胞就是错的？日本战犯无罪，那被日本法西斯夺去生命的就是有罪了？敢说日本战犯无罪的人，就不怕遭天谴吗？
老卢 发表于 2014-9-2 12:53
是安背鬼说不是莫迪说，莫迪怎么会知道倭人的想法，上街做过调查？
肯定是 用恒河水 投票
是安背鬼说不是莫迪说，莫迪怎么会知道倭人的想法，上街做过调查？
肯定是 用恒河水 投票