Rakka

I will not respond to comments that are emotionally out of control, personal attacks, or barking.
軍国主義と歴史修正主義に反対する
華語（簡繁隨心）/日本語（永遠の初心者）/English（So-so）

[Rakka @moechina]

美伊暂时停火，可能导致出现新的“911”

[Rakka @moechina]

终归还是扛不住1450和网右有组织的举报

[Scott｜Monsterblockhk @0xScottlai]

作為一個土生土長的香港人，我可以說今晚這場大火絕對是人禍

現場是大埔宏福苑，整個屋苑有 8 座大廈���今天下午約 2:51，宏福苑的宏昌閣外牆正在進行維修時，外牆棚架發生火警，已經有網民在 Threads 拍下當時小火的情況，可是在十分鐘後火警已經往上順延

問題一：有住戶表示火警發生時火警鐘未能響起，濃煙突然湧入，多人來不及逃出

問題二：多名網民和住戶在 Threads 已貼出疑似現場其中一座大廈的維修棚架中，有工人吸煙和亂拋煙頭的照片和影片，雖然不能證實是今天發生的，但已經有人認為這是最大機會引發火警的原因，畢竟居民已經多次提醒工友不要再吸煙

問題三：維修背景

這個絕對要講，為什麼是人禍？

在 2024 年年初，宏福苑的屋苑法團通過一項總額約 3.3 億港元的大維修方案，用於整個外牆更新

方案覆蓋 8 座大廈約 1984 戶住戶，每戶需分 6 期繳費，每戶需負擔約 16–18 萬港元，這裡已經很離譜，因為基本上是強迫每戶付錢出來，更別說這次為了節��成本而直接 8 座大廈同時進行維修，增加風險

當時法團拒絕重選並以法律手段回應部分業主，而維修工程當然直接開始，整個屋苑被搭上竹棚架和保護網

但其實，保護網沒有用上最新政府標準所要求的防火網，而是普通的阻燃物料，我附上的第 2 張圖片可以清楚看到，所謂阻燃也沒有成功起到作用，反而棚架比保護網更堅固，證明問題出在【沒有用上防火網】

重點也來了，因為宏福苑是一個私人屋苑，所以不會由政府直接管理，而是由立案法團委聘承建商，也就是私人工程公司

私人工程不需要跟足政府標準，比如說公營工程防火規範，所以他們用的竹棚和普通阻燃圍網，的確是合法，但前面我也提到這是十分高風險

再加上工人吸煙讓火種掉落，近年政府大量引入外勞，也沒有說有什麼條例去監管和控制外勞，那如果這次工程的工人也是外勞呢？

香港工程一判再判早已是常態，為了壓低成本，最底層工人往往薪金最低和培訓不足，監管亦有限，這當然是制度問題，而不是工人本身的問題

所以這不是單一意外

而是由成本導向的維修決策和鬆散監管制度，也因為欠缺防火網和安全文化薄弱，一層一層累積而成的人禍，最後導致今天大家看到的五級大火爆發

當然，這一切未有官方最終調查結論，還需要等待政府公布原因，但在這個世界裡面，有多少出來的資料是真假，大家可以想像到

[哈结棍 @EricY_SH]

瞧着吧，香港大火，救灾的会是政府，援助的会是人民，而废墟未冷，吃���血馒头的会是民主和自由卫士。

[47NEWS @47news_official]

【速報】米大統領、高市首相に台湾発言抑制要求か
https://t.co/gDifwURrlP

[🚨Indian Gems @IndianGems_]

Country where actors and politicians are not treated as Gods

[Rakka @moechina]

@jlxc2001 当前设备，我第一次注册和下载twitter是在日本，后来换手机在大马重新下载的app，现在显示是大马appstore

[波士顿圆脸 Boston Round Face @Bos360face]

中学卒業程度で国際法や国連に関する知識がない人でも、日本代表の声明の誤りは一目瞭然だ。1：今回の騒動の原因高市の狂った発言に一切言及しない。2：中国の領土台湾を日本の存立危機の要因と見なしたのは高市の発言である。他国の領土を理由に自国の存立危機を引き起こすという発言は、個人がした場合は精神錯乱、国家行為であれば侵略だ！

任何初中毕业没有任何国���法知识或者联合国常识的也都能看出日本代表这份声明的错误。1：对导致了此次风波的高市疯狂发言没有任何提及。2：是高市的发言将中国的领土台湾视为能引起日本存立危机的因素。任何将他国领土视为自己存立危机的发言，如果是个人发言只能说是精神错乱，如果是国家行为那就是侵略！

[Where Winds Meet @WhereWindsMeet_]

Witness ancient grace come to life in #WhereWindsMeet through motion capture.

[Assal Rad @AssalRad]

These NYT headlines are two days apart.

🇷🇺: Occupies 🇮🇱: Holds

[誠實豆沙包 @savage_tw1949]

台灣人真的無恥到一個極致。
「南京大屠殺」
在遠東國際軍事法庭的審判中
已經被確認和記錄。
許多來自第三方國家的目擊者、記者
和國際安全區的成員
也留下了大量的書面和影像證據。
台灣人為了政治目的
輕描淡寫的一句話
就可以把過去在災難中倖存的人
以及為人道救援而努力的英雄們
全都變成笨蛋。

[Carlos Latuff @LatuffCartoons]

彼らはもはや自らの意図を隠そうともしない。日本海軍の公式Twitterアカウントは、第二次世界大戦時の日本の国旗の写真を投稿した。世界が第二次世界大戦終結と広島・長崎への原爆投下から80周年を迎える今年、高市早苗氏とその政府は、既に葬り去られたと思っていた怪物を蘇らせようとしている。

[Zhai Xiang @ZhaiXiang5]

https://t.co/7EpDJEGwmY

I must say, I am genuinely surprised.

Compared with the hesitant silence we have often seen in the past, Japan's decision to issue a direct and public counter-response this morning to China's letter at the United Nations is unexpected.

I have read Ambassador Yamazaki's letter carefully.

While the document is tidy and follows diplomatic conventions, there is substantial room for improvement, logically, historically, and legally.

I studied China-US-Japan relations at Stanford for three years, and have conducted extensive archival research in multiple presidential libraries such as FDR, Nixon and Reagan, where I handled original correspondence between Japanese leaders, US presidents, and White House memos. I also reviewed a large volume of primary documents at Hoover and in Taipei. My Stanford thesis focused on the Ryukyu and Diaoyu disputes and was published in the leading Chinese studies journal of the United States.

Let me, as a serious IR scholar rigorously trained in this field, respond point by point.

1. If Japan is truly "exclusively defense-oriented," why deploy military assets to the Taiwan Strait?
Japan repeatedly claims its defense posture is strictly defensive. But if Japanese Self-Defense Force vessels can cross national boundaries and operate in the Taiwan Strait, then: "Defense" becomes "projection."

This fundamental contradiction is never explained in the letter.

It is not simply a question of where a ship travels, but a question of how Japan justifies extraterritorial military deployments under the framework of a supposedly passive defense doctrine.

2. Japan's rapid remilitarization: still "self-defense"?
Over the past decade, Japan has taken major steps:
-Defense spending at new highs, placing the country among the world's top ten
-Acquisition of "counterstrike capability (in reality, long-range strike capability)"
-The 2015 Security Legislation enabling collective self-defense, a major constitutional controversy
-Increasing military presence oriented toward Taiwan
-Deepened operational integration with the United States

A fundamental question arises:
Did the 2015 reinterpretation of collective self-defense violate Japan's Constitution?
Many constitutional scholars in Japan say yes.

Ambassador Yamazaki avoids this entirely, while speaking at length about "international law." But he should also note Japan's domestic legal inconsistencies are far more serious.

3. Since Ambassador Yamazaki cites the 1972 Joint Communique, let's review what it actually says.

In the statement, the Japanese government declares its adherence to Article 8 of the Potsdam Proclamation, which states that "the terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out."

The Cairo Declaration of 1943, jointly issued by the major Allied leaders, explicitly stipulated:
"All the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa, and the Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China."

Under international law, states, not governments, are the subjects of sovereignty. Governments merely represent the state. After 1949, the People's Republic of China (PRC) replaced the Republic of China (ROC) and succeeded to its corresponding rights and obligations. Since the Ambassador presents Japan as a country that respects and upholds the authority of the United Nations so much, let's remind him of what was affirmed by United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758:

"Recognizing that the representatives of the Government of the People’s Republic of China are the only lawful representatives of China to the United Nations and that the People's Republic of China is one of the five permanent members of the Security Council."

Therefore, Japan's statement that it adheres to Article 8 of Potsdam is, in effect, confirmation that Taiwan belongs to China, and indirectly confirms that Taiwan falls within the sovereignty of the PRC.

I encourage the Ambassador to address all relevant clauses, not just the ones that suit his narrative.

4. Peaceful resolution of the Taiwan question? Japan must first examine its own policies.
I, like many others, sincerely hope for a peaceful resolution of the Taiwan question.

But if certain Japanese politicians threaten military intervention, and mislead the Japanese public by framing such actions as "cool" or "righteous" to boost their approval ratings, then how exactly can peace be achieved? I FEEL worried.

Japan's actions contradict its rhetoric. You cannot escalate military posture while preaching "de-escalation," Mr. Ambassador.

5. Accusing China of "stifling" people-to-people exchanges? This claim is puzzling
I honestly fail to see the evidence.

In the past few years, China has repeatedly funded youth exchange programs, covering airfare, accommodation, and all activities for young Japanese to visit China.

I myself have been invited many times to speak with Japanese youth participants and made some really good friends. China has taken such active steps to encourage next-generation understanding. So what, then, is being "restricted"? Could Ambassador Yamazaki provide a concrete example? I am willing to investigate it personally and respond.

Also, I genuinely want to know if Japan provides a similar opportunity for Chinese?

6. On Japanese fishery products: refusing imports is not "coercion"
The discharge of treated water from Fukushima remains controversial. Many Japanese citizens themselves avoid Fukushima products too. Every sovereign state has the right to maintain food-safety standards. China is simply exercising its consumer rights. Is Japan demanding compulsory acceptance of its products?

A deeply flawed argument.

7. Has Japan never taken coercive action against states with differing views?
Japan itself:
-Joined US export-control measures against China
-Imposed screening and restrictions on Chinese enterprises
-Engaged in political pressure campaigns in regional security forums

If Japan cannot faithfully answer whether it has ever applied pressure on others, then its claimed stance of opposing coercion lacks credibility.

8. Since Mr. Ambassador emphasizes respect for international law, then two questions must be answered:
-Japan's status as a defeated state matters
The post-1945 international order clearly assigned Taiwan to China.
No international legal instrument grants Japan any role in the Taiwan question.

-Was the "reversion of Okinawa" fully compliant with international law?
Okinawa was originally designated for United Nations trusteeship after WWII.
Japan seemingly bypassed the intended framework.

If Japan invokes international law, it should explain the legality of its own postwar territorial processes.

9. A country that consistently denies wartime history cannot claim moral leadership in peace
A truly peace-loving nation does not:
-Deny historical atrocities
-Embrace revisionist narratives
-Allow its politicians to visit Yasukuni Shrine, which enshrines Class-A war criminals. If this is considered a contribution to peace, then the word "peace" is being used in a rather creative sense.

Japan has yet to resolve these issues. It is therefore difficult for Japan to position itself as role model of peace in the region, or in the UN.

Tone matters, but facts matter more.

I welcome Japan speaking openly in the United Nations.

But open statements must accept open responses, grounded in international law, historical documents, policy consistency, regional realities.

Rhetoric cannot substitute for facts.
Domestic reinterpretations cannot replace international consensus.
Unhalted march toward military normalization cannot count as pursuit of peace.

Perhaps the research intern who drafted the letter deserves a second look, Ambassador Yamazaki.

[油爆琵琶拌着面🇨🇳 @zmx8067]

這幾天真是長見識了：
1、圖一，這批所謂的“反共”賬號都是從Taiwan app store 登錄，賬號所在地都在🇩🇪德國，連開藍標的時間都統一為 2025 年 7 月。🤔
2、圖二，李老師賬號所在地為東亞，���子賬號開始質疑李老師是阿共水軍。😅

[海外脱出ネオニート / Tomo-Taro @TomoTar64556409]

Xで投稿していて気が付いた両者の特徴

【ネトウヨ】
①非常に攻撃的
②捨て垢率が高い
③ほぼ全員レイシスト
④無理矢理日本を擁護
⑤差別大好き
⑥弱者叩きが半端ない
⑦対話能力ゼロ

【サヨピー】
①穏やか
②対話が可能
③言葉遣いが丁寧
④平和主義
⑤差別が嫌い
⑥普通に日本を批判できる

[Rakka @moechina]

@ColourPlain 可能是我之前去日右那边对线被举报多了，账号被打了标签，我现在发的消息基本都会进“可能的垃圾信息”里，而且过段时间就被隐藏

[Rakka @moechina]

@KELMAND1 目前的消息��判断，特与高的通话，至少对日本是不利的沟通

[Rakka @moechina]

@liuguangchui 我说怎么感觉哪里不对，你太坏了

[Rakka @moechina]

@liuguangchui 9100-9300左右的时候没了一段，之后又出来，直到13700左右。。。