tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post7662762543673867539..comments2024-01-26T17:48:29.804+09:00Comments on Dokdo-or-Takeshima?: Korean Soccer Player Denied Medal After Displaying "Dokdo" SignGerry Bevershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14311939520870098017noreply@blogger.comBlogger214125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-34320416994604211202015-04-10T09:47:41.844+09:002015-04-10T09:47:41.844+09:00i think that people free to express all of they th...i think that people free to express all of they think..<br />i support what are they doing for they country..sitahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15945234891171800029noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-58662672514742664542013-08-23T09:28:42.892+09:002013-08-23T09:28:42.892+09:00The only reason japan is saying the Dok do is thei...The only reason japan is saying the Dok do is their land is because that place is really good for military purposes... Now layoff your dumbness and eat sushi.KimmyRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14731897968902063644noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-58309539859173889092013-08-23T09:27:36.782+09:002013-08-23T09:27:36.782+09:00The only reason japan is saying the Dok do is thei...The only reason japan is saying the Dok do is their land is because that place is really good for military purposes... Now layoff your dumbness and eat sushi.KimmyRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14731897968902063644noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-5727912751529547962012-09-30T22:03:11.871+09:002012-09-30T22:03:11.871+09:00Victim means some one who has been wronged...... s...Victim means some one who has been wronged...... so is the victim the nation that was invaded and then where it's women were shipped to be sex slaves (korea) or the nation that executed these deeds (Japan)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06380552725694088255noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-3590089255298482602012-09-30T22:02:58.515+09:002012-09-30T22:02:58.515+09:00Hear hear.... I couldn't have put it better m...Hear hear.... I couldn't have put it better myselfAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06380552725694088255noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-16777588463423920052012-09-30T22:01:28.278+09:002012-09-30T22:01:28.278+09:00Hear hear.... I couldn't have put it better m...Hear hear.... I couldn't have put it better myselfAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06380552725694088255noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-76278653268058556012012-09-30T21:52:14.051+09:002012-09-30T21:52:14.051+09:00Victim means some one who has been wronged...... s...Victim means some one who has been wronged...... so is the victim the nation that was invaded and then where it's women were shipped to be sex slaves (korea) or the nation that executed these deeds (Japan)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06380552725694088255noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-78293472672016675252012-09-29T03:36:30.405+09:002012-09-29T03:36:30.405+09:00Hello,
I'm from Canada. We have a similar sit...Hello,<br /><br />I'm from Canada. We have a similar situation with Norway. But I think it has been forgotten now. <br /><br />In my opinion I would say that Dokdo is South Korea's island. They have people living on it and also military personal on it. <br /><br />I think Koreans are becoming very upset and nationalistic over this because they feel like Japan is invading Korea again by trying to claim this island. The reason Korea is so upset over this is because of the 30 year occupation of Korea by Japan. For the first time in Korean history, their land was taken over. Their king and queen was killed and their palace was destroyed by the Japanese. Many of the women were turned into sex slaves. Also hundreds of ancient sites were vandalized or destroyed by the Japanese. Because of this I can see why Korea has a grudge even to this day. <br /><br />The war is long over, but Korea still holds this grudge along with many other Asian countries that were invaded by Japan. The man reason this grudge is still going on is because Japan has never officially apologized for what they did. They also don't like to teach their people what they did. Which is very different from Germany, who apologized for what happened and many generals faced war crime trials. So in Europe that hate towards Germany has faded away. But Japan has been very stubborn about their wrong doings. <br /><br />During WWII Canadians defended Hong Kong. The Japanese invaded in a surprise attack and slaughtered them. They went into the hospital and killed all the patients and nurses. They were very very brutal during the war. They even told their own people to kill themselves instead of surrendering to the Americans. The Americans would see Japanese civilians jumping off cliffs with their babies. A very sad story. <br /><br />Today I have no problem with Japan. I would love to visit japan and I love many things about their culture. But Japan never invaded my country, but if they did and did not apologize for it. I can say I would probably not like the Japanese government very much and maybe not want to buy Japanese products.<br /><br />So I can see why South Koreans are holding a grudge towards Japan. Why does Japan want these islands so badly? They are also stirring up trouble now with China. Tensions are now escalating to were their are warships in position. It's starting to get scary. It's just a bunch of rocks. Why go to war over some rocks floating in the middle of the sea. It's very silly to me. <br /><br />If China does go to war with Japan and the US, where will South Korea stand? North Korea will be on China's side and South would have to side with Japan and the US even though they are also having this dispute with their own islands. <br /><br />BrothaJeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11614233989947022189noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-22182166562625880952012-09-05T02:09:39.398+09:002012-09-05T02:09:39.398+09:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05121535267222852588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-22550971929838801762012-09-05T00:15:47.426+09:002012-09-05T00:15:47.426+09:00それと
Dokdo or Ulleungdo had not belonged to Shimane...それと<br />Dokdo or Ulleungdo had not belonged to Shimane-han, <br /><br />この文中の or は、日本人が英作文をするときによく間違う、and とすべき単語の間違いでしょうか?<br />小嶋日向守https://www.blogger.com/profile/07893820564918155381noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-34815361848186336672012-09-05T00:08:45.267+09:002012-09-05T00:08:45.267+09:00吉田さん
横レス失礼しますが、隠岐が、幕府領だということはご存じですよね?
管理は、松江藩がしてい...吉田さん<br /> 横レス失礼しますが、隠岐が、幕府領だということはご存じですよね?<br />管理は、松江藩がしていましたが、あくまでも預かっていただけです。<br />島根藩などという言葉があったんで、ちょっと心配になりました。<br />小嶋日向守https://www.blogger.com/profile/07893820564918155381noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-3868807993753205962012-09-04T17:45:36.884+09:002012-09-04T17:45:36.884+09:00Mr.Sloww
Honestly, I agree with you. I am not aff...Mr.Sloww<br /><br />Honestly, I agree with you. I am not affirmative for MOFA’s No.2 opinion about her sovereignty of Takeshima in pre-modern era, it sound too strong for me.<br />So, I would like to weaken No.2 and add some opinion to them.<br /><br />1.Japan has long recognized the existence of Takeshima.<br /><br />2. Japan used Takeshima as a stopover port en route to Utsuryo Island and as fishing ground, thus there are historical legitimacy. <br /><br />3. At the end of the 17th century Japan prohibited passage of ships to Utsuryo Island, but not to Takeshima.<br /><br />4. Japan reaffirmed its intention to claim sovereignty over Takeshima by incorporating Takaeshima into Shimane Prefecture in 1905.<br /><br />5. In the drafting process of the Treaty of Peace with Japan, the United States rejected the request by the Republic of Korea (ROK) that Takeshima be added to the relevant article of the Treaty as one of the areas which Japan would renounce, asserting that Takeshima had been under the jurisdiction of Japan.<br /><br />6. In 1952, Takeshima was designated as one of the areas for maritime exercises and training for the U.S. Forces stationed in Japan, which shows that Takeshima was treated as part of the territory of Japan.<br /><br />7. ROK is illegally occupying Takeshima, against which Japan has been consistently making strong protests.<br /><br />8. Although Japan proposed to the ROK that the dispute over Takeshima be Referred to the International Court of Justice, and the ROK rejected this proposal.<br /><br />While;<br /><br />1. There is no evidence that the ROK has long recognized the existence of Takeshima. (Usan-do was never Takeshima)<br /><br />2. There is no evidence that the ROK had used Takeshima as a stopover port en route to Utsuryo Island and as fishing ground, so there was no historical legitimacy.<br /><br />3. The ROK has prohibited living and passage of ships to both Utsuryo and other islands, including Takeshima until 1882, because of her 460 years empty land policy.<br /><br />4. The deposition by Ahn Yong-Bok, on which the ROK side bases its claim. contains many points that conflict with factual evidence.<br /><br />5. The ROK had never affirmed its intention to claim sovereignty over Takeshima in 1900 and never after . (Sokto was never Takeshima)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05121535267222852588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-13443341608918442822012-09-04T17:20:37.596+09:002012-09-04T17:20:37.596+09:00Mr. Kumabear,
What color do you think is the east...Mr. Kumabear,<br /><br />What color do you think is the east side of northern Japan painted with?<br />--> How do I know?<br /><br />Amami is the one of the most significant and important islands among Japanese islands.You must be unfamiliar with Japanese geography. <br />--> Amami is <a href="https://maps.google.co.jp/maps?q=%E5%A5%84%E7%BE%8E%E5%A4%A7%E5%B3%B6&hl=ja&ie=UTF8&ll=30.694612,129.748535&spn=12.981197,14.282227&sll=34.794951,136.015481&sspn=48.800683,57.128906&brcurrent=3,0x34674e0fd77f192f:0xf54275d47c665244,0&hnear=%E5%A5%84%E7%BE%8E%E5%A4%A7%E5%B3%B6&t=m&z=6" rel="nofollow">here</a>. Nagakubo didn't draw Amami, but he drew Ulleongdo and Dokdo in his map. You can't compare Amami with Ulleongdo and Dokdo.<br /><br /><br />I didn't say Nagakubo didn't. I'm sure he did. I said people who saw his map must have not read. <br />--> What matters is Nagakubo read the "隠州視聴合記".<br /><br /><br />According to your claim, he skipped Matsushima and went back to Onshu"此州" right after describing Takeshima"見高麗猶雲州望隠州". It doesn't make any sense. <br />-->It's the matter you should ask the writer. <br />slowwhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10705001704163840289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-11016288507646182792012-09-04T10:11:28.768+09:002012-09-04T10:11:28.768+09:00I forgot to answer you because I had more importan...I forgot to answer you because I had more important things to do, <br /><br />I agree with you except the following point.<br /><br />As you said, Japan had never acquired the sovereignty of Dokdo before 1905. We never say it but, we are only saying; precise maps inside the land or maps which showed the clear identification of location, visiting, navigating, hunting records showed national peoples activity on the land, could be some historical legitimacy, not sovereignty. <br /><br />I feel you don't know precisely what Japanese government's and the pro-Japanese people's logic on Dokdo is. You said Japan never said Japan had never acquired the sovereignty of Dokdo before 1905. Go to Japan's MOFA site and read the "The Issue of Takeshima". You can read "Japan established the sovereignty over Takeshima by the mid 17th century in the early Edo Period at the latest." Do you know the bases for such claim? They are 1) Ohya and Murakawa Families fishing activity on Ulleongdo and 2) using Dokdo as a navigational port and docking point for ships and a rich fishing ground for sea lions and abalone. Isn't it nonsense to claim Japan had established the sovereignty of Dokdo at least by the late 17th century because the Japanese did illegal fishing activity in Ulleongdo and used Dokdo as a stopover port on the way to Ulleongdo?<br /><br />If you agree with me, why don't you let Japan's MOFA know its funny and shameless claim doesn't make any sense?<br /><br /><br />And while Japan have many clear evidences; <br />--> Do you mean evidence for historical legitimacy? If I understood you exactly, you meant historical legitimacy has nothing to do with sovereignty claim. The fact Japan had relatively more documents and maps related to Dokdo than Korea doesn't justify Japan's sovereignty claim on Dokdo. You know Korean had the empty island policy for long time. That's why Korean has less documents and maps than Japan. But, thankfully, Japan has a lot of evidence Japan excluded Dokdo as Japanese land and considering Dokdo as Korean land.slowwhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10705001704163840289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-63601666796970107912012-09-04T08:39:07.136+09:002012-09-04T08:39:07.136+09:00Mr.sloww
>>They are painted with with red, ...Mr.sloww<br /><br />>>They are painted with with red, yellow, blue and 'uncolored'? <br />What color do you think is the east side of northern Japan painted with?<br />>>What do you mean?>><br />Amami is the one of the most significant and important islands among Japanese islands.You must be unfamiliar with Japanese geography. <br />>>If he didn't read "隠州視聴合記", where do you think he get the phrase "見高麗猶雲州望隠州"?>><br />I didn't say Nagakubo didn't. I'm sure he did. I said people who saw his map must have not read. How could they think Ulleungdo was Korean territory by only one sentense 見高麗猶雲州望隠州?<br />>>Why should Matsushima be necessarily mentioned?<br />He mentioned Matsuhima prior to Takeshima"戍亥間行二日一夜有松島". According to your claim, he skipped Matsushima and went back to Onshu"此州" right after describing Takeshima"見高麗猶雲州望隠州". It doesn't make any sense. The readers must be confused "what about Matsushima?" Moreover, he wrote 然即日本之乾地、此州..... Please consider the reason why he wrote "NORTHWEST of Japan" carefully. Prior to this phrase, he said only in southern direction from Onshu had shu(雲州/伯州/石州) and in northeastern direction from Onshu had nothing could be seen.Kumabearhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09236342868189171080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-83153547875280353882012-09-03T23:24:09.965+09:002012-09-03T23:24:09.965+09:00Mr. Kumabear,
Where are Tosa, Higo and Hachijojim...Mr. Kumabear,<br /><br />Where are Tosa, Higo and Hachijojima?>> <br />Look at the main island of Japan. It was painted with red, yellow, blue and 'uncolored'. Aren't uncolored provinces Japanese territory?<br />--> I don't understand what you mean. They are painted with with red, yellow, blue and 'uncolored'? <br /><br /><br />>>I already know where Amamai is. It's very small island.>> <br />I hope you're kidding. <br />--> What do you mean?<br /><br />I don't think people at the time have read the document(隠州視聴合記) since it was written one century ago.<br />--> If he didn't read "隠州視聴合記", where do you think he get the phrase "見高麗猶雲州望隠州"?<br /><br />Why didn't he simply write 'Korean territory' or put the following phrases 日本之乾地、以此州為限矣 on the Oki islands? <br />--> Who knows? <br /><br />But where has MATSUSHIMA gone? Why was Matsushima passed unmentioned?<br />--> Why should Matsushima be necessarily mentioned? He said Oki Island is the northwest boundary of Japan. Isn't it enough?<br /><br />Mr. Yoshida,<br /><br />So, 長久保赤水, who was a lecturer from Mito-han, would not have read 隠州視聴合記. <br />--> If he didn't read "隠州視聴合記", where do you think he get the phrase ""見高麗猶雲州望隠州"?<br /><br />slowwhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10705001704163840289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-59451311303350713232012-08-31T00:30:34.501+09:002012-08-31T00:30:34.501+09:00➢ I don't think people at the time have read t...➢ I don't think people at the time have read the document(隠州視聴合記) since it was written one century ago. <br />➢ <br />I totally agree with Kumabear.<br />隠州視聴合記 had not printed but manuscript copied. It weren’t circulated nationally, they had been found only in very near area inside Shimane. It is a very good geography but it is also hearsay, not by research of author himself, who was no-named in Matsue-han. Edo-bakufu would have neither reorganized nor approved it. If so, there should kept named author and the evidence within them, they were so recording maniac, as we know. <br />So, 長久保赤水, who was a lecturer from Mito-han, would not have read 隠州視聴合記. Moreover, if he had read this by any chance, he would not found the controversial , delicate comprehension of Dokdo’s belonging in隠州視聴合記, as Kumabear had said. Because he, his government, his era did not care at all for the belonging of small no-mans island.<br /><br />So, important thing is, he had known and could have located the island precisely, and had given name it as “Matushima”.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05121535267222852588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-24115521921984378272012-08-30T23:00:11.221+09:002012-08-30T23:00:11.221+09:00Mr.sloww
>>Where are Tosa, Higo and Hachijo...Mr.sloww<br /><br />>>Where are Tosa, Higo and Hachijojima?>> <br />Look at the main island of Japan. It was painted with red, yellow, blue and 'uncolored'. Aren't uncolored provinces Japanese territory?<br />>>I already know where Amamai is. It's very small island.>> <br />I hope you're kidding. <br />>>which means he understood "隠州視聴合記" said the northwest boundary of Japan was Oki land.>><br />I don't think people at the time have read the document(隠州視聴合記) since it was written one century ago. I wonder how many people out of who saw Nagakubo's map could actually understand what he meant by only that phrase (even IF Nagakubo actually read the phrase as you do and wanted to clarify that those islands were Korean territory to everyone)?. Why didn't he simply write 'Korean territory' or put the following phrases 日本之乾地、以此州為限矣 on the Oki islands? <br />Your translating must be “Viewing Korea from Ulleungdo is the same as viewing Onshu from Unshu. So then, Onshu is the boundary of Japan in the northwest.”<br />But where has MATSUSHIMA gone? Why was Matsushima passed unmentioned?Kumabearhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09236342868189171080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-19424550008178106702012-08-30T22:58:56.051+09:002012-08-30T22:58:56.051+09:00This comment has been removed by the author.Kumabearhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09236342868189171080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-37664901893433245832012-08-30T20:11:00.848+09:002012-08-30T20:11:00.848+09:00Mr. Sloww
In pre-modern world before Western Impe...Mr. Sloww<br /><br />In pre-modern world before Western Imperialism, maps or records of travel had never been purposed for showing Sovereignty. <br />So there are no case in international law’s history, which gave testify to pre-modern description of maps, or records or anything. <br />(For example, Marco Polo had never contributed any sovereignty of Venetia, but some intellectual fame. Or, if China possessed an old map, which had happened to color Dokdo as same as their mainland or anything, it never became the evidence of Dodo’s belonging to China, did they?)<br /><br />In Edo era in the 18th century, publishing maps were privatized (before Mamiya RInzo in 19th, facing the threat of western powers), the purpose of maps and records had many varieties, mainly for satisfying people’s curiosity to know civilized area, or sometimes researching, exploring and navigation of unknown area.<br /><br />Edo-bakufu had given license for any publishing include maps, but when she had allowed, she let them distributed as described, and didn't unified or controlled them. <br />So naturally, we found any consistency or unification by authority, though it was certain that private mapmakers would have strongly referred old records or maps, as far as they had known. <br /><br />As you said, Japan had never acquired the sovereignty of Dokdo before 1905. <br />We never say it : we are only saying, "precise maps inside the land or maps which showed the clear identification of location, visiting, navigating, hunting records, showed national peoples activity on the land, so they could be some historical legitimacy, not sovereignty". And while Japan have many clear evidences; Korea seems to have nothing clear of these.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05121535267222852588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-90073884227236728202012-08-29T20:33:59.116+09:002012-08-29T20:33:59.116+09:00Kumabear,
The main point of "隠州視聴合記" is...Kumabear,<br /><br />The main point of "隠州視聴合記" is the sentence "此二島 無人之地 見高麗如 雲州望隱州 然則 日本之乾地 以 此州 爲限矣". Korea and Japan interpret "此州" differently. Kore interprets "此州" is Oki Island, which excludes Dokdo as Japanese land. Japan interprets it is Ulleongdo which includes Dokdo as Japanese land. <br /><br />Thus, I used Nakagubo's map of 1779 to prove "隠州視聴合記" excluded Ulleongdo and Dokdo as Japanese land and included them as Korean land. <br /><br />In Nakagubo's map of 1779, Ulleongdo and Dokdo are uncolored same as mainland Korea and outside the grid of Japan’s longitudinal and latitudinal lines, which means he perceived those two islands as Korean land. And he added the phrase ""見高麗猶雲州望隠州 (Viewing Koryo (Korea) is the same as viewing Onshu (Oki island) from Unshu)" from "隠州視聴合記", which means he understood "隠州視聴合記" said the northwest boundary of Japan was Oki land.<br /><br />改正日本輿地路程全図(1779) <a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-av6wJ3qM8xY/UDWXQBk9sZI/AAAAAAAAAzU/crOisj9cqGg/s1600/1779+%EA%B0%9C%EC%A0%95%ED%91%9C%EC%8B%9C.jpg" rel="nofollow">1</a> <a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wzRsxZwjSig/UDWOM-9l8zI/AAAAAAAAAyc/pqSHueHQ3RE/s1600/1779+%EA%B0%9C%EC%A0%95.jpg" rel="nofollow">2</a><br /><br />You wrote "for Nagakubo's map, there are some districts(provinces) in Japanese mainland aren't colored either." <br /><br />Where are Tosa, Higo and Hachijojima? I already know where Amamai is. It's very small island. Anyway, these island are different from Ulleongdo and Dokdo to the Japanese. Ulleongdo and Dokdo had never been considered as Japanese land. And the Japanese fishermen did go to those islands for long time for fishing. You may not deny Nakagubo must have referenced the old Japanese maps and documents to make his own map. Is there any Japanese old official map depicted those two islands as Japanese land before 1779? Do you think Nakagubo didn't know about the Edo Bakufu's voyage ban to Ulleongdo? If Nagakubo understood "隠州視聴合記" said the Ulleongdo and Dokdo were Japanese land, he had no reason not to color those two islands same as Oki lsland and write the phrase from "隠州視聴合記".<br /><br />Do you know Prof. Ikeuchi Satoshi (池内敏)'s 「大君外交と武威」? He explains well what "此州" in "隠州視聴合記" indicates. His point is in favor of Korean claim, but it would help you to figure out what "此州" is no matter what you agree with him or not.<br /><br />slowwhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10705001704163840289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-8343454775099253912012-08-29T18:13:50.833+09:002012-08-29T18:13:50.833+09:00sloww
I have no idea why you think 隠州視聴合記 exclude...sloww<br /><br />I have no idea why you think 隠州視聴合記 excluded Takeshima and Matsushima. Please reread all sentences. This document explains geography “around Oki islands”. Going up to northwest, the author finally reached the place(Ulleungdo) where he could see nothing but Korea in a northwestern direction. That's why he thought Ulleungdo was the limit of Japanese territory. He couldn't find either any other islands which seemed uninhabited or Japanese territory anymore from Ulleungdo, or foreigners actually using the island. If he regarded Takeshima as Korean territory, why did he mention the details of Ulleungdo? What made him convince that “an UNINHABITED island” was an other country's territory?<br />As I mentioned above, he began explaining geography from 'OKI ISLANDS(Onshu)' not from Shimane(Unshu) as a starting point, and then he said “'THIS' is the boundary of 'NORTHWEST' of Japanese territory” when he arrived at Ulleungdo. How could NOT 'this' be Ulleungdo? You can translate it more simply, “Ulleungdo is the northwestern-most as seen from Oki islands”<br /><br />As for Nagakubo's map, there are some districts(provinces) in Japanese mainland aren't colored either, like Tosa, Higo and northern Japan. And some very important Japanese islands like Amami, Hachijojima (they are big and inhabited unlike Ulleungdo or Takeshima) were omitted there. Allow me to use my assumption(not the fact), he probably didn't know the degree of those two islands. As you can see, even the distance between them are inaccurate compared to other places' accuracy. If he thought they were Korean, he would not have drawn them on the map in the first place or simply have written 朝鮮領'Korean territory'.Kumabearhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09236342868189171080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-32394565690328375392012-08-29T13:55:31.508+09:002012-08-29T13:55:31.508+09:00Mr. Sloww
Thank you very much to notice me.
I jus...Mr. Sloww<br /><br />Thank you very much to notice me.<br />I just want to know how much your government is spending on Dokdo campaign, compare to Japan.<br /><br />Can you please read it from here?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05121535267222852588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-74486394084073210062012-08-29T11:15:40.938+09:002012-08-29T11:15:40.938+09:00Mr. Yoshimda
You didn't have to do that. You ...Mr. Yoshimda<br /><br />You didn't have to do that. You know that's not what I wanted. As I told you before, why do you doubt Korean government is not transparent while Japan is? <br /><br />You were so rude to ask me Korean government's transparency on budget. Transparency on budget is a matter of course in the democratic countries, isn't it?<br />Korea is a democratic country.<br /><br />Go to http://www.mosf.go.kr/_upload/bbs/76/attach/20120706142517946.pdf<br />for what you want to see.<br />slowwhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10705001704163840289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-22524247548996025882012-08-28T17:26:35.753+09:002012-08-28T17:26:35.753+09:00Mr.jk6411
Is it allowed in Korea to use “probably...Mr.jk6411<br /><br />Is it allowed in Korea to use “probably” ,”perhaps” or “I guess” when you study history? As I said before, you are only talking about your assumption made of your wish.<br />>>If you had to draw Dokdo as one island, it would look exactly like the Usando in the 4 maps of Ulleungdo>><br />To begin with, why do you have to draw as one island? There remain many Japanese maps depicting Takeshima as twin islets from 17c. <br />1656「松島絵図」 <br />1696「小谷伊兵衛より差出候竹嶋之絵図」<br />1724 「竹嶋図」<br />1724「小谷伊兵衛ニ所持被成候竹嶋絵図之写 」<br />http://www16.tok2.com/home/otakeshimaoxdokdox/Japan.ArgonautDageletLiancourtRocksMapGallary/EdoUlleungdoLiacnorutOkimap.htm <br />There's no record the rock surface between two islets has appeared above sea-level. <br />And Koreans made many maps precisely depicting Ulleungdo in detail at that time. I can't find the reason they drew Dokdo as one island. <br />You always make excuse for old Korean maps' inaccuracy and pervert them, but on the other hand, you require accuracy of Japanese maps and persistently point out trivial details on them.<br />By the way, I've never heard your explanation about 独島問題概論 yet, which says Korea has no record she formally annexed Dokdo before 1905.“島根縣領으로 編入함에 始한 것이니 이렇게 되기 以前에 欝陵島의 行政区割에 編入된 明示된 公的記録이 없다고 해서” And about the fact every books and textbooks written by foreigners and Korean themselves without exception always excluded Dokdo from Korean territory.<br />http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.jp/2007/12/1894-1948.html <br />This is a solid evidence Koreans had never recognized Dokdo even after the war ended.Kumabearhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09236342868189171080noreply@blogger.com