|
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 |
Guri Guy
Joined: 07 Sep 2003
Location: Bamboo Island
|
 Posted: Mon Feb 09, 2009 11:30 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
I would, but I doubt I would be heard over the "Japanophiles" sticking their fingers in their ears and going "nah,nah, nah I can't hear you."
Been there, done that. |
My apologies. You called me a Japanophile which I find insulting as it insinuates I am a lecherous little geek that loves anime and worships Japan.
You did not call me a Japan hater. Apology given. Mea culpa.
You did however refer to Gerry Bevers as a Korean hater and then refused to admit that you insulted him. My bad.
Urmy says:
| Quote: |
| Gerry Bevers. That would be the guy who is well known on several discussion forums to hate Koreans and use discredited sources like Bruce Cumings to make his point. |
Then Urmy says:
| Quote: |
| Insults? What are you talking about? Please find where I insulted him or demonized him. |
So, now that that's clear, you are not a Korean apologist and you don't speak for Koreans on any matter whatsoever. Period. You have an objective mind, a biting wit and expert analytical skills.
Therefore, would you like to explain why French, British, Japanese and Korean sources all stated that Korea's Easternmost boundary was Jukdo and not Dokdo. (Before and after 1905)
I await your reply as you have stated that you have knowledge of the situation.
Cordially,
GG |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Guri Guy
Joined: 07 Sep 2003
Location: Bamboo Island
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| What does my "location" have to do with this? |
On your profile einstein.
Again what does my "location" have to do with this? Do you seriously believe that I am living on Dokdo?
| Quote: |
| And as for what I represent? I represent myself. I have never claimed nor do I claim to speak for Korea on this or any other issue. It's called having a debate. But look at yourself. You are claiming to speak for Japan on this issue, even though you are not Japanese, not even a Japanese reject. That's rather hypocritical. Given your behaviour in this thread do you not realize that any charge you level against me can be applied to you by simply switching the word "Korea" for "Japan"? |
You're living a lie. You are a SELF-CONFESSED Korean apologist, and here you are lying about what you represent. 
Being called a Korean apologist and actually being a Korean apologist are two different things. And being a Korean apologist does not entitle one to claim that they speak for Korea. Once again I have NEVER claimed to speak for Korea
| Quote: |
| Correct. Korea is not on Japan's level. IMO it surpassed it long ago. |
Yeah well, there's no way you actually believe this. No need to lie for my sake (bcz I already know for a fact that your opinion is a sham). 
Really? Since when did Korea launch a war of agression and try to conquer China, the Philippines, Japan....? Since when did Korea become famous for its "death marches"?
And since you don't know me nor have even met me you don't know what you are talking about.
| Quote: |
| And you are taking this far too seriously. Chill out dude, this is an Internet debate with someone you've never met. |
Oh it's nothing personal, I'm just calling you out on your bullsh-t.
Nothing personal? So that would explain the profanity and name-calling?
Btw, why don't you just quote and reply like a normal person instead of using your silly bolded commentary inside other peoples' text? |
|
You are a self-confessed Korean apologist who claims not to represent the Korean point of view on this issue. If you're too dumb (which I actually think you are) to realise how inconsistent this is, it makes no difference. I'll still call you on it, just for the record, it matters not at all to me if you acknowledge it.
| Quote: |
| Because that's how I roll. No one is forcing you to read it if it annoys you. Why don't you just NOT click on the thread like a normal person |
You don't "roll", your way just sucks and is inferior.
| Quote: |
Really? Since when did Korea launch a war of agression and try to conquer China, the Philippines, Japan....? Since when did Korea become famous for its "death marches"?
And since you don't know me nor have even met me you don't know what you are talking about. |
The only people who remember that stuff today are Korean whiners and wannabes like you. Besides that Japan is famous for its culture, commerce, manufacturing, technology, food etc.; all of which make Korea look like the irrelevant pissant country it is in comparison. Japan is also a far more generous country than Korea, all Korean prosperity is a direct result of Japanese influence, contributions and investment. Korea would be nothing without Japan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 3:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| little mixed girl wrote: |
honestly, no one aside from japan and korea really care about the islands.
but if you want to pretend that korea is the only country that is nationalistic on this issue, you obviously don't know of the "northern territories" that japan is fighting to get back.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuril_Islands_dispute
i think that february is "remember the northern territories month".
commercials are currently running on tv here to push people to become "educated" about the issues, and remember that the islands belong to japan.
i think that if japan backed off dokdo, then they would have more claim to some of those northern islands.
at the moment, it just looks like greed.
especially when japanese documentaries are going on bragging about having the 8th(?) largest sea territory in the world.
where does korea fit in that? just give it to them. then they can say "see, we were diplomatic, now help us with this issue with russia".
i wouldn't be too surprised if japan feels like "we can't win against russia, but at least we can beat korea". |
This is total nonsense. There's no way Japan should give into a single Korean demand on this issue considering that Korean gunboats illegally and forceably took the island from Japan and killed Japanese fisherman in the process. Korea deserves to reap what it's sown when Japan does the same in turn some day in the future.
As for your theory about Russia, it's irrelevant to Takeshima. Territorial disputes are case by case. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
asylum seeker
Joined: 22 Jul 2007
Location: On your computer screen.
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 5:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| little mixed girl wrote: |
honestly, no one aside from japan and korea really care about the islands.
but if you want to pretend that korea is the only country that is nationalistic on this issue, you obviously don't know of the "northern territories" that japan is fighting to get back.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuril_Islands_dispute
i think that february is "remember the northern territories month".
commercials are currently running on tv here to push people to become "educated" about the issues, and remember that the islands belong to japan.
i think that if japan backed off dokdo, then they would have more claim to some of those northern islands.
at the moment, it just looks like greed.
especially when japanese documentaries are going on bragging about having the 8th(?) largest sea territory in the world.
where does korea fit in that? just give it to them. then they can say "see, we were diplomatic, now help us with this issue with russia".
i wouldn't be too surprised if japan feels like "we can't win against russia, but at least we can beat korea". |
This is total nonsense. There's no way Japan should give into a single Korean demand on this issue considering that Korean gunboats illegally and forceably took the island from Japan and killed Japanese fisherman in the process. Korea deserves to reap what it's sown when Japan does the same in turn some day in the future.
As for your theory about Russia, it's irrelevant to Takeshima. Territorial disputes are case by case. |
Japan did far worse to Korea with their invasion and occupation than what Korea did by claiming Dokdo. If you can't see that much then I really think arguing with you is just going to be a waste of time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ilsanman
Joined: 15 Aug 2003
Location: Bucheon, Korea
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 6:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
If Korea is claiming the islets on the basis of repayment for past sin, then they can report it that way.
They report it as 'we knew about them first' so they're bald-faced liars.
Also, 2 wrongs don't make a right.
| asylum seeker wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| little mixed girl wrote: |
honestly, no one aside from japan and korea really care about the islands.
but if you want to pretend that korea is the only country that is nationalistic on this issue, you obviously don't know of the "northern territories" that japan is fighting to get back.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuril_Islands_dispute
i think that february is "remember the northern territories month".
commercials are currently running on tv here to push people to become "educated" about the issues, and remember that the islands belong to japan.
i think that if japan backed off dokdo, then they would have more claim to some of those northern islands.
at the moment, it just looks like greed.
especially when japanese documentaries are going on bragging about having the 8th(?) largest sea territory in the world.
where does korea fit in that? just give it to them. then they can say "see, we were diplomatic, now help us with this issue with russia".
i wouldn't be too surprised if japan feels like "we can't win against russia, but at least we can beat korea". |
This is total nonsense. There's no way Japan should give into a single Korean demand on this issue considering that Korean gunboats illegally and forceably took the island from Japan and killed Japanese fisherman in the process. Korea deserves to reap what it's sown when Japan does the same in turn some day in the future.
As for your theory about Russia, it's irrelevant to Takeshima. Territorial disputes are case by case. |
Japan did far worse to Korea with their invasion and occupation than what Korea did by claiming Dokdo. If you can't see that much then I really think arguing with you is just going to be a waste of time. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guri Guy
Joined: 07 Sep 2003
Location: Bamboo Island
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 7:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Japan did far worse to Korea with their invasion and occupation than what Korea did by claiming Dokdo. If you can't see that much then I really think arguing with you is just going to be a waste of time. |
Stick to the facts. It wasn't an invasion first of all. It was an annexation.
Second of all, Koreans invited the Japanese in.
However, this has nothing to do with the Dokdo/Takeshima issue. As Ilsanman said, "Two wrongs don't make a right." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guri Guy
Joined: 07 Sep 2003
Location: Bamboo Island
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 8:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Here is an article about a German Atlas from 1893. Liancourt rocks were shown to be part of Japan in it. It is also interesting to see the name for the Sea in which they are located.
| Quote: |
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
1893 Andree's Allgemeiner Handatlas
The following two maps are from "Andree's Allgemeiner Handatlas" (1893) which was published in Leipzig, Germany by Velhagen & Klasing.
The first one is a map of China, Korea and Japan "Ubersichtskarte von China und Japan". In this map, Korean territory was indicated in yellow whilst Japan's territory was shown in orange. Please take a look at Ulleungdo, which was labelled as "Matsu Schima" - it looks as coloured in yellow. Yes, it accurately shows that Ulleungdo belonged to Korea. Then, please take a close look at Liancourt Rocks, which is labelled as "Liancourt R." - it was coloured in orange! Yes, it shows that Liancourt Rocks belonged to Japan. At least, the rocks were not recognised as Korean territory in the 1890's - it is quite natural because Korean eastern limit had been believed to be Ulleungdo. (Broughton bay was labelled as "Broughton Bai") |
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2009/02/1893-andrees-allgemeiner-handatlas.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guri Guy
Joined: 07 Sep 2003
Location: Bamboo Island
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 8:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
Here is a French map from 1894. It also marks the Liancourt rocks as belonging to Japan. It also lists Ulleungdo as belonging to Japan as well which is incorrect. Certainly though, it is consistent and further evidence that the world knew that the Liancourt rocks belonged to Japan.
Once again, it is interesting to see how the Sea between Korea and Japan was named.
| Quote: |
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
1894 French map of Korea and Japan
France had a lot of information about Korea in the 19th century because there were many missionaries sent to this hermit country, although many of them were massacred later. Anyway, they had more information about Korea than other western countries had. So we have kept a big interest in French maps of Korea, although they are very scarce.
...................
Here is a French map of Korea and Japan at last - "Chine Orientale, Coree, Japon" from E. Schraider's "Atlas de geographie moderne" which was published in 1894 in Paris, France by Librairie Hachette et Cie.
Please look at the islands in the "Mer du Japon" - Ulleungdo was labelled as "Is. Dagelet (Matsou Sima) (Jap)" whilst Liancourt Rocks were labelled as "Is. Liancourt ou Hornet (Jap)".
........
Now you may notice that there is a word (Jap) just below of each island. France recognised that Ulleungdo and Liancourt Rocks belonged to Japan, as many other western countries did. At least, French people didn't think that Liancourt Rocks belonged to Korea - this is very important because French people knew more about Korea than other western countries. This is another evidence to show that the world didn't recognise that Liancourt Rocks belonged to Korea.
(Broughton bay was labelled as "G.de Broughton") |
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2009/02/1894-french-map-of-korea-and-japan.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guri Guy
Joined: 07 Sep 2003
Location: Bamboo Island
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 9:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
Here is a British map of Japan from 1894. More evidence that the world knew who owned the Liancourt rocks. Yet again, notice what the sea between Korea and Japan is called.
| Quote: |
Sunday, July 06, 2008
1894 British map of Japan
This map was published by Edward Stanford, Charing Cross, London, in 1894. Edward Stanford was the founder of Stanford's Ltd, now a duo of maps and book stores based in London and Bristol. With British colonial expansion pushing the demand for maps worldwide, and being the sole specialist of maps in London, the name of Stanford became prominent. His most accurate map of London in 1862, The Library Map of London, is still on sale today.
Now look at the islands in the Sea of Japan. There are three islands labeled as "Taka Shima", "Matsu Shima" and "Liancourt Rks.". "Taka Shima" is coloured in light brown which is the same colour as Korean peninsula, while "Matsu Shima" is in light purple which is the same as Oki islands, counties of Iwami, Idzumo and Hoki. Also please note a line drawn in red dots around "Matsu Shima". This line is the national border. UK in 1894 believed that "Taka Shima", obviously a phantom island called Argonaut island, was Korean territory while they believed "Matsu Shima" (Dagelet island) and "Liancourt Rks." were Japanese territory. This is another evidence that the world didn't think Liancourt Rocks to be Korean territory in the 1890's, just a while before the #41 Korean Edict which mentioned Seokdo was issued in 1900. |
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2008/07/1894-british-map-of-japan.html[/quote] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 3:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Guri Guy wrote: |
| Quote: |
I would, but I doubt I would be heard over the "Japanophiles" sticking their fingers in their ears and going "nah,nah, nah I can't hear you."
Been there, done that. |
My apologies. You called me a Japanophile which I find insulting as it insinuates I am a lecherous little geek that loves anime and worships Japan.
You did not call me a Japan hater. Apology given. Mea culpa.
That is YOUR definition of a "Japanophile" not MINE. And while we are on the subject I never called YOU anything. I already stated way back that I was not interested in debating this with the "Japanophiles"...but I'm STILL debating you
You did however refer to Gerry Bevers as a Korean hater and then refused to admit that you insulted him. My bad.
Urmy says:
| Quote: |
| Gerry Bevers. That would be the guy who is well known on several discussion forums to hate Koreans and use discredited sources like Bruce Cumings to make his point. |
I believe this shows that I was talking about OTHER peoples' opinion of Gerry Bevers and not mine...nice try though
Then Urmy says:
| Quote: |
| Insults? What are you talking about? Please find where I insulted him or demonized him. |
Again where did I demonize him?
So, now that that's clear, you are not a Korean apologist and you don't speak for Koreans on any matter whatsoever. Period. You have an objective mind, a biting wit and expert analytical skills.
Thank you. Yours aren't too shabby either
Therefore, would you like to explain why French, British, Japanese and Korean sources all stated that Korea's Easternmost boundary was Jukdo and not Dokdo. (Before and after 1905)
Certainly. Let's look at the Korean source (Cho, I presume?) As we can see in the above posts he was a opportunist who went with the ruling regime of the day. Dismissed as a non-credible source. As for the other sources, what are their credentials? What sources did they use? Did they use Japanese maps or Korean maps? Whom did they talk to? Did they actually draw their conclusions from traveling around Korea, or based it on what they were told? Were they trained actual surveyors or just amateurs giving their opinion? Did Bevers leave out any information from those books that might have supported the Korean case? Have you actually read the books yourself or are you just parroting Bevers's excerpts? There are too many questions to just blindly accept them at face value.
Take Bird's quote. She states that the southern limit of Korea is the Sea of Japan...where the heck is Jeju?
In the end what you have is a blog which may or may not be credible, based on sources which may or may not be credible who drew THEIR information from sources which may or may not be credible.
Bevers in his own blog admitted that he was not a trained historian, and that his work would not meet the standards to be published in an academic journal. Hardly someone to base your entire case on
I await your reply as you have stated that you have knowledge of the situation.
Cordially,
GG |
And as cordially yours.
Last edited by TheUrbanMyth on Tue Feb 10, 2009 4:46 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 3:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Guri Guy wrote: |
Here is an article about a German Atlas from 1893. Liancourt rocks were shown to be part of Japan in it. It is also interesting to see the name for the Sea in which they are located.
| Quote: |
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
1893 Andree's Allgemeiner Handatlas
The following two maps are from "Andree's Allgemeiner Handatlas" (1893) which was published in Leipzig, Germany by Velhagen & Klasing.
The first one is a map of China, Korea and Japan "Ubersichtskarte von China und Japan". In this map, Korean territory was indicated in yellow whilst Japan's territory was shown in orange. Please take a look at Ulleungdo, which was labelled as "Matsu Schima" - it looks as coloured in yellow. Yes, it accurately shows that Ulleungdo belonged to Korea. Then, please take a close look at Liancourt Rocks, which is labelled as "Liancourt R." - it was coloured in orange! Yes, it shows that Liancourt Rocks belonged to Japan. At least, the rocks were not recognised as Korean territory in the 1890's - it is quite natural because Korean eastern limit had been believed to be Ulleungdo. (Broughton bay was labelled as "Broughton Bai") |
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2009/02/1893-andrees-allgemeiner-handatlas.html |
1893...Wasn't a large part of your case based on Japan claiming Dokdo by terra nullius in 1905? If LR WAS Japanese territory...they wouldn't have needed to RECLAIM it. So was this just the opinion of the map makers? The Japanese in 1905 certainly didn't seem to feel the same way.
Point being that maps made in the 18-19th century by EUROPEANS about the Far East were not always accurate not did they reflect the more fluid situations of the times.
And since Japan claimed Dokdo by terra nullius in 1905 any map made before that time claiming Dokdo was Japanese territory is clearly inaccurate/irrelevent. You don't claim your OWN territory by terra nullius. And that puts paid as well to any of the other sources/maps that make this claim prior to 1905. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sjrm
Joined: 27 Jul 2005
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guri Guy
Joined: 07 Sep 2003
Location: Bamboo Island
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 11:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here is an explanation of the situation. Essentially the Liancourt Rocks always belonged to Japan but weren't incorporated. This is not an uncommon situation.
Even the US has territories that are essentially rocks that not incorporated into the United States.
The US distinguishes between incorporated and unincorporated territories. The following is according to Wikipedia:
"Incorporated territory in essence is land that has been irrevocabably incorporated within the sovereignty of the United States and to which the full corpus of the U.S. Constitution applies. Unincorporated territory is land held by the United States, and to which U.S. Congress applies selected parts of the constitution.
I do not how Japan considered Liancourt Rocks in the legal sense, but when the a Japanese fishmen asked the Japanese government to incorporate the rocks to help protect his investment there, they agreed. Of course, it was probably a small headache for Shimane Prefecture to have to administer the rocks, but I guess they thought it was worth it.
Therefore it seems that the Liancourt rocks were incorporated in 1905 into the Shimane prefecture at the request of fishermen and seal hunters who were pursuing a livelihood there. I suppose it would be to the benefit of the Shimane prefecture to have jurisdiction over the rocks as the seal hunters would pay taxes to them.
It is possible that the islets became ownerless after 1867 when the Edo Bakufu (1603-1867) fell. However Korea has presented zero evidence to show that the islets were under their control at the time. At worst, some maps show the Liancourt rocks and Ulleungdo as being controlled by neither Korea or Japan between 1867-1904.
| Quote: |
The sea boundary between Korea and Japan had actually been very obscure until the Ahn Yong-Bok incident in Lee Dynasty/Edo Period.
Since then, the Japanese fishermen were allowed to go to Dokdo/Takeshima but no longer Ulleungdo. Still then, there were no Korean documents of Dokdo/Takeshima while Edo Japan even had accurate maps of it.
Look at the dates of the maps on the link. They were all published after MEIJI RESTORATION, which is not the successor of Edo Bakufu.
Edo Bakufu (1603-1867) recognized Dokdo/Takeshima under its control. Look at maps before 1867.
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/search/label/Maps%3A_Japanese
However, the Meiji gov't (1867-1912) recognized Dokdo/Takeshima as an ownerless island until they incorporated it into Shimane Prefecture in 1905.
Look at these maps made by Japanese geographers/Korean textbooks in the same period as the maps you showed me. They exclude Dokdo/Takeshima from Korea too.
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2008/06/korean-eastern-limits-described-in.html
You need to know that the Meiji gov't destroyed Edo Bakufu and they're completely different organizations. Sorry about the lengthy explanation of pre-modern Japanese History. |
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2007/06/1877-watanabe-says-liancourt-rocks-is.html
There was also confusion about island names during the 19th century due to a mapping error by some Western countries. This was cleared up by a Japanese survey in 1881. At worst the islands were ownerless but they never were under the control of Korea. Simply put, there is zero evidence. Feel free to give some if you wish.
| Quote: |
The following is a translation of Mr. Watanabe's letter, which can be found as Item No. 11 in the third and last volume of the 1881 text, "A Study of Historical Evidence of Takeshima" (竹島考証):
Concerning Matsushima
There are several brief descriptions of Takeshima (Ulleungdo) in past records, but there are no discussions of Matsushima. However, these days people are talking a great deal about Matsushima. There are various views. Some say that it is two islands, and some say that it is one island with two names, but I have not heard that it has been decided either way.
The (mentioned) �Takeshima� is considered to be Chosun�s Ulleungdo, which the Shogunate ended up entrusting to them (Koreans) as a convenient quick fix, without considering future implications. Therefore, if the �Matsushima� being talked about here is Takeshima (Ulleungdo), then it belongs to them. If the Matsushima is not Takeshima, then it must belong to Japan. It is still inconclusive.
The location of Matsushima (Songdo) is considered important because it is situated between Joseon and Japan. It is on sea routes between Nagasaki and Vladisvostok and between Shimonseiki and Wonsan, so this is a critical location, where English and Russian warships are frequently seen. So we should be very careful. Even if it is part of Joseon, we still have to protect it. As things stand now, we have no answers to give if other countries ask us about the island. This means the island is ownerless.
Many records say that �Argonaut,� which is the Western name for Takeshima (Ulleungdo), does not exist, and that �Dagelet,� which refers to Matsushima, is actually Takeshima (Ulleungdo). So what we call "Matsushima� (Liancourt Rocks) is called �Hornet Rocks� by Westerners. Foreign maps show Hornet Rocks to be Japanese territory, but there is still no agreement among countries concerning the other two islands.
We do not have the answers either, so the area should be surveyed to determine under whose jurisdiction it belongs. Therefore, we should first contact Shimane Prefecture and investigate their relationship up to now. At the same time, we need to dispatch a ship to do a survey of the area. If Chosun has already started, we need to determine their progress and consider our options. I respectfully urge that this matter be dealt with as soon as possible.
Watanabe Kouki, Director of the Bureau of Documents |
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2007/06/1877-watanabe-says-liancourt-rocks-is.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guri Guy
Joined: 07 Sep 2003
Location: Bamboo Island
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 11:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| And since Japan claimed Dokdo by terra nullius in 1905 any map made before that time claiming Dokdo was Japanese territory is clearly inaccurate/irrelevent. You don't claim your OWN territory by terra nullius. And that puts paid as well to any of the other sources/maps that make this claim prior to 1905. |
By your logic then, neither country has any evidence of Dokdo/Takeshima before 1905. Therefore, "first come, first served." Guess which country was first?
You may want to rethink your logic. Oh and how is Steve Barber's website?
BTW...You made fun of a spelling mistake I made earlier in this thread. You may want to check that log in your eye.
| Quote: |
| And that puts paid as well to any of the other sources/maps that make this claim prior to 1905. |
??? This statement makes no sense. Sorry. |
|
| 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
