|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
 Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 11:56 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Guri Guy wrote: |
I'm afraid your arguments aren't backed up by any evidence whatsoever so you're not one to talk UrMy.
Blinding parroting the Dokdo myth makes you beyond lame. *Awwk* *Awwk* Dokdo is ours...Japan is evil...I don't have any evidence but if I shout louder than you, I'm sure to win Korean style...*Awwk*
Not a Dokdo parrot,
GG |
Gerry Bevers makes a good case, but I'm a little suspicious of him based on his clear prejudice against Koreans (I've seen his blog before). At any rate, I'm convinced that Japan knew of the islands and used them long before Korea did.
The point I've seen elsewhere is that Japan 'abandoned' the islands. If this is true, this would weaken Japan's claim. The case would seem to hinge on possession and how possession was taken. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 12:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Guri Guy wrote: |
I'm afraid your arguments aren't backed up by any evidence whatsoever so you're not one to talk UrMy.
Blinding parroting the Dokdo myth makes you beyond lame. *Awwk* *Awwk* Dokdo is ours...Japan is evil...I don't have any evidence but if I shout louder than you, I'm sure to win Korean style...*Awwk*
Not a Dokdo parrot,
GG |
Gerry Bevers makes a good case, but I'm a little suspicious of him based on his clear prejudice against Koreans (I've seen his blog before). At any rate, I'm convinced that Japan knew of the islands and used them long before Korea did.
The point I've seen elsewhere is that Japan 'abandoned' the islands. If this is true, this would weaken Japan's claim. The case would seem to hinge on possession and how possession was taken. |
How would this weaken their case at all? I've already pointed out several times that Japan's claim is based on terra nullius (meaning unclaimed land). Under this kind of claim, the first country to claim that land gets it, unless another country can prove it was their territory first. Korea is simply unable to prove this.
Realistically, people from both countries probably used the area around the rocks for fishing etc. before Japan's formal claim in 1905. But we are talking about simple legality here, not what some people think "ought" to be. If Korea can't prove unequivocally that "Dokdo" was formally listed as part of Korean territory before Japan claimed it in 1905, then they've got nothing, simple as that. Seems quite straightforward to me, don't see how it's complicated at all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 12:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| Guri Guy wrote: |
I'm afraid your arguments aren't backed up by any evidence whatsoever so you're not one to talk UrMy.
Blinding parroting the Dokdo myth makes you beyond lame. *Awwk* *Awwk* Dokdo is ours...Japan is evil...I don't have any evidence but if I shout louder than you, I'm sure to win Korean style...*Awwk*
Not a Dokdo parrot,
GG |
Gerry Bevers makes a good case, but I'm a little suspicious of him based on his clear prejudice against Koreans (I've seen his blog before). At any rate, I'm convinced that Japan knew of the islands and used them long before Korea did.
The point I've seen elsewhere is that Japan 'abandoned' the islands. If this is true, this would weaken Japan's claim. The case would seem to hinge on possession and how possession was taken. |
How would this weaken their case at all? I've already pointed out several times that Japan's claim is based on terra nullius (meaning unclaimed land). Under this kind of claim, the first country to claim that land gets it, unless another country can prove it was their territory first. Korea is simply unable to prove this.
Realistically, people from both countries probably used the area around the rocks for fishing etc. before Japan's formal claim in 1905. But we are talking about simple legality here, not what some people think "ought" to be. If Korea can't prove unequivocally that "Dokdo" was formally listed as part of Korean territory before Japan claimed it in 1905, then they've got nothing, simple as that. Seems quite straightforward to me, don't see how it's complicated at all. |
I know why it seems straightforward to you. But I wanted to take a look at the case law, because it did not seem straightforward to me. However, seems that you are right, terra nullius is the dominant theory at work at the ICJ. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 2:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
Gerry Bevers makes a good case, but I'm a little suspicious of him based on his clear prejudice against Koreans (I've seen his blog before). At any rate, I'm convinced that Japan knew of the islands and used them long before Korea did.
The point I've seen elsewhere is that Japan 'abandoned' the islands. If this is true, this would weaken Japan's claim. The case would seem to hinge on possession and how possession was taken. |
How would this weaken their case at all? I've already pointed out several times that Japan's claim is based on terra nullius (meaning unclaimed land). Under this kind of claim, the first country to claim that land gets it, unless another country can prove it was their territory first. Korea is simply unable to prove this.
Realistically, people from both countries probably used the area around the rocks for fishing etc. before Japan's formal claim in 1905. But we are talking about simple legality here, not what some people think "ought" to be. If Korea can't prove unequivocally that "Dokdo" was formally listed as part of Korean territory before Japan claimed it in 1905, then they've got nothing, simple as that. Seems quite straightforward to me, don't see how it's complicated at all. |
I know why it seems straightforward to you. But I wanted to take a look at the case law, because it did not seem straightforward to me. However, seems that you are right, terra nullius is the dominant theory at work at the ICJ. |
Anyway, I read that link you gave and the historical case examples on why Korea won't likely take it to the ICJ were interesting. Thanks for posting it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guri Guy
Joined: 07 Sep 2003
Location: Bamboo Island
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 8:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think Gerry Bevers backs up his arguments with solid evidence. I suppose he might have some prejudice towards Koreans but I don't think that invalidates the tremendous amount of research, time and dedication he has put into researching the subject of Dokdo/Takeshima.
I'd take his word over almost any Korean historian. They definitely seem to have an axe to grind as far as Japan goes.
Gerry Bevers pwns Dokdo,
GG |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nautilus
Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Location: Je jump, Tu jump, oui jump!
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 10:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| It simply depends on what criteria for ownership you agree on.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 10:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Guri Guy wrote: |
I'm afraid your arguments aren't backed up by any evidence whatsoever so you're not one to talk UrMy.
Blinding parroting the Dokdo myth makes you beyond lame. *Awwk* *Awwk* Dokdo is ours...Japan is evil...I don't have any evidence but if I shout louder than you, I'm sure to win Korean style...*Awwk*
Not a Dokdo parrot,
GG |
I backed them up with evidence. Just because one guy says he's not going to accept them doesn't make it so.
And I have not seen ANY evidence for the Japanese side...and I suspect I never will either. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 10:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
[
Bottom line is all the facts are on my side.
You can find dozens of credible links for each point on google, it's all common knowledge
. . |
Then post some of these "dozens"...three should be enough. Funny how you make all these claims...yet never post any links... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guri Guy
Joined: 07 Sep 2003
Location: Bamboo Island
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 10:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Evidence that is illogical, falsified or just plain wrong doesn't qualify.
Merely post evidence that shows that Korea was cognizant of Dokdo before 1905. That's all you have to do. Trotting out crap that has been refuted countless times before on these boards won't get it done. Show me a Korean map that accurately depicts Dokdo correctly as two islands and the debate will be over.
Something like this will suffice nicely:
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2008/07/1696-illustrative-map-of-takeshima.html
I'll be waiting till hell freezes over for sufficient over for that information since it doesn't exist but by all means give it a shot.
竹島は日本のです、
グリガイ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 10:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Guri Guy wrote: |
竹島は日本のです、
グリガイ |
Is that 독도 우리 땅이다 but for and in Japanese?
Ugh, I think I just threw up a little in my mouth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flakfizer
Joined: 12 Nov 2004
Location: scaling the Cliffs of Insanity with a frayed rope.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 11:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Guri Guy wrote: |
Evidence that is illogical, falsified or just plain wrong doesn't qualify.
Merely post evidence that shows that Korea was cognizant of Dokdo before 1905. That's all you have to do. Trotting out crap that has been refuted countless times before on these boards won't get it done. Show me a Korean map that accurately depicts Dokdo correctly as two islands and the debate will be over.
Something like this will suffice nicely:
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2008/07/1696-illustrative-map-of-takeshima.html
I'll be waiting till hell freezes over for sufficient over for that information since it doesn't exist but by all means give it a shot.
竹島は日本のです、
グリガイ |
Since when is a blog credible? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 12:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Guri Guy wrote: |
Evidence that is illogical, falsified or just plain wrong doesn't qualify.
Merely post evidence that shows that Korea was cognizant of Dokdo before 1905. That's all you have to do. Trotting out crap that has been refuted countless times before on these boards won't get it done. Show me a Korean map that accurately depicts Dokdo correctly as two islands and the debate will be over.
Something like this will suffice nicely:
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2008/07/1696-illustrative-map-of-takeshima.html
I'll be waiting till hell freezes over for sufficient over for that information since it doesn't exist but by all means give it a shot.
竹島は日本のです、
グリガイ |
Since when is a blog credible? |
Since when are you credible? Stop pretending you've got anything worth saying when you can't even give us the ONE (and only) thing you actually need to win the debate: A KOREAN MAP WITH "DOKDO" WRITTEN ON IT BEFORE 1905.
Till you can provide that, you've got nothing. And the onus is you 100%.
(if you respond without giving said map, I will only just re-state the above ad nauseum till you go away). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 12:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
In 1905 Japan was an evil imperialst power invading and abusing its neighbors. No claim made by Japan during this era should be allowed.
Korea was a victim of Japan's abuse.
Korea has Dokdo now.
Korea will not give up Dokdo.
Korea will fight to keep Dokdo.
Many foreigners would be willing to fight the Japanese to help Korea keep Dokdo, including myself.
Therefore, Korea owns Dokdo.
Japan should renounce its claim, apologize again for becoming an Imperialistic, power once again, and go away. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 12:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ontheway wrote: |
In 1905 Japan was an evil imperialst power invading and abusing its neighbors. No claim made by Japan during this era should be allowed.
Korea was a victim of Japan's abuse.
Korea has Dokdo now.
Korea will not give up Dokdo.
Korea will fight to keep Dokdo.
Many foreigners would be willing to fight the Japanese to help Korea keep Dokdo, including myself.
Therefore, Korea owns Dokdo.
Japan should renounce its claim, apologize again for becoming an Imperialistic, power once again, and go away. |
Japan claimed Takeshima before signing the Eulsa Treaty with Korea. 
You should do more research before spouting off your ignorance. As for the rest of your post, it's all bunk since Korea deserves nothing, nor can it possibly win in a fight against Japan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
