러ㆍ일전쟁 당시 외무성 정무국장으로 대러선전포고 원문을 기초한 야마자 엔지로(山座円次郞)는 '독도를 한국의 영토인 줄 알고' 임대신청서를 제출하기 위해 찾아온 나카이 요사부로(中井養三郞)에게 "이 시국이야말로 독도의 영토편입이 필요하다. 독도에 망루를 설치하고 무선 또는 해저전선을 설치하면 적함을 감시하는 데 극히 좋지 않겠는가?"라고 발언하였습니다
松竹梅(Pine, Bamboo, Plum) is a traditional way of counting things in Japan, each of which means "Primary, Secondary, Tertiary." Japanese called the Liancourt Rocks as "Matsushima (Primary Island)" and the Ulleungdo island as Takeshima (Secondary Island) in the Edo period. In the 19th century, when European maps which wrongly depicted two Ulleungdos were introduced to Japan, there occurred a confusion. Then, the Liancourt Rocks came to be called as "Takeshima."
@GloriousJapanForever AH.... that got me frustrated Every korean know we had effective controle over Dok Do when Jpn has none but one with 1905, You say Korea never sailed to Dok do?? Go to google and type 'Why is Dokdo a Korean island, and Takeshima a fiction?'and read carefully before you reply
@GloriousJapanForever AH!!!! its written in Sejongsilokjiriji that Usando(old name for Dok Do) is vislble from Ullengdo and have you went into to the site i recommanded you ?
guess you couldn't admit those evidences, could you? Its all written there
the fact Korea had control over Dok do from way before 1905 and that Dok do is visible from Ullengdo and that Usando is an old name for Dokdo
Just as I told, the fact that some island is visible from some place doesn't work as evidence of effective control of the island. If so, we Japanese could claim the Korean peninsula simply because it is visible from our land. Actually International law (Island of Palmas Case) says as follows.
"Title based on contiguity has no standing in international law."
Go google "'Why is Dokdo a Korean island, and Takeshima a fiction" and read the first website. For some reason, i cannot paste the URL so, just go and read them carefully. It has all the evidences
I know all "evidences" South Korea has shown us. All are about Japan saying this or that or the island being visible from some place. We can see no evidence of effective control of Dokdo prior to 1905.
@GloriousJapanForever i mean it, just go into damn site and read them all, it has an Old Korean history docments that proves KOREA had effective control over Dok Do since long time ago You DONT know all the evidences South Korea has shown. i guess u r too sacred to take the truths
@GloriousJapanForever You say you couldnt find any ? guess i have to copy and paste them all for you
Some Korean history books provide an explicit description of ownership of Dokdo. A 1756 History book titled "Border History" (강계고; 疆界考) by Gyeong-Jun Shin describes historical borders of the Korean territory. A pertinent section states:
"In my considered opinion, the statement in Yeojiji (여지지; 輿地志; note: Presently, no extant copy of this book is available) is correct, which states that 'although some dumb people theorize that Ulleungdo and Usan are one island, consideration of many maps leads to the conclusion that there are two distinct islands. One is what the Japanese refer to as Songdo (송도; 松島; Matsushima in Japanese). These two islands belong to Usan-guk (于山國).'"
Other Korean history books that also show Korean ownership of Dokdo include: Mangi Yoram (만기요람; 萬機要覽) of 1808, History of the East (해동역사; 海東繹史) of 1823, and Revised Encyclopedia of Records (증보문헌비고; 增補文獻備考) of 1907
There are NO islands which are called as "Dokudo" in the world except Korea. Also, Korean has distorted the historical name of "Dokudo" as @GloriousJapanForever mentioned in discussing with @S20ham. You should follow it and recognize that there are no historical fact and evidence that "Dokudo" had belonged to Korea.
"Two Islands, Usan and Muleung, are in the sea due east of Uljin-hyun. Two Islands are not far away from each other, and visible if the weather is clear, "
This description says "two islands are visible from Uljin-hyun"
Reason.
1. Dokdo is not lie in the "due east of Uljing-hyun."
2. We can't say Ulleungdo and Dokdo are "not far" from each other.
3. Ulleungdo and Dokdo don't lie within100ri = 40km circumference.
wow.. you just changed the meaning ... original document says "Two Islands are not far away from each other, SO if the weather is clear, it's possible to see (each other)." You wrote AND on your sample instead of SO, which changes the entire sentence's meaning.
It says, they are NOT FAR FROM EACH OTHER SO, visible if the weather is celar
THis means ppl could see DOKDO FROM ULLENGDO, u get it now?
Can you read original text written in Chinese language? Also, have you read the whole chapter before and after the description? The chapter was an article written about Uljin-hyun, so the description is stating what they could see from Uljin-hyun. Korean Dokdo researchers have distorted the meaning of the original text reckoning that most Koreans cannot read Chinese sentences.
@GloriousJapanForever You say korea distored the history? i thought that was kinda thing japan is used to do. I asked my Chninese friends and he said the translation is correct and said sentence was about two islands
If you can't admit that, I'll give you another evidence ヤンコ島 - 鬱陵島より東南の方約三十里、我が隠岐国を西北に距ること殆ど同…於て、
無人の一島であり、晴天の際鬱陵島山峰の高所より之を望むを得べし...
-韓海通漁指針 한해통어지침 1903-
This document was written in Jpn and it proves that Dok Do can be seen from Ullengdo
All "evidences" you show us are merely "Japanese said this," "japanese said that." Can't you show us any concrete and clear evidence that Chosun was actually conducting effective control over Dokdo prior to 1905? Why can't you show us such an evidence to us?
For an island to be visible from some place is nothing an evidence of "effective control." Actually, the fact that there is no old Korean map which depicted Dokdo as two islets which lied 90 east-southeast of the Ulleungdo island even though they were visible from the island simply means that Koreans had never sailed to the islet during the Chosun dynasty. If Koreans had never sailed to Dokdo then, it means Koreans had no effective control of the islets prior to 1905. Period.
Why could the documents you proposed be the evidence that "Dokudo" should belong to Korea? Japan has many old maps and formal documents which show the existence of Takeshima as Japanese territory. However, Korea has not recognized it as the evidence Takeshima belongs to Japan. I think your logic is contradicting.
JAPAN OFFICIALLY RECOGNIZED Dokdo as KOREAN: 1696 Murakami (村上) document 1854 Ogasawara (小笠原) dispute 1877 Daijōkan (太政官) order 1896 Ministry of Foreign Affairs Report (朝鮮國交始末內深書) 1904 Korea-Japan Protocol (韓日議定書 Article 3) 1951 Financial Ministerial Ordinance No.4 (大藏省令) 1951 Prime Ministerial Ordinance No.24 (總理府令) Here are written documents that state Dok Do belongs to Korea historically Dok Do is Korean Geographically, Dok Do(Takehsima) is closer to Korea
Ok, then, please show us any concrete evidence which shows that Chosun had effective control of Dokdo prior to 1905. According to international law, you can't claim title to an island without peaceful and long-term effective control. As far as I know, there is no historical fact that Chosun had ever conducted any effective control over the islets which are now called Dokdo.
@GloriousJapanForever You said that 1905 Feb 22nd, Jpn claimed that Dok do is their island however, this doesn't mean anything cause, Jpn annexed korea in 1904
And we got all our lands back at 1945, by our independence and by the
Cairo declaration
Also, you are talking about 'prior to 1905', if you look at the Korean history, Dok do has been conquered by Lee Sa Bu,the korean army general in 512 BCE
Also other many documents that exists hundreads of yrs ago proves this
Japan saying that Dokdo belongs to Korea is not evidence that Chosun had ever conducted effective control over Dokdo prior to 1905. i'm asking you to show us the evidence that Chosun had ever conducted effective control over the island prior to 1905 to us. There is no such evidence, since there is not such a historical fact.
>Saejongsilokjiriji written in 1454 ACE, Dok do was mationed as Korea's island and since then, Korea had effective control over Dok do
Saejongsilokjiriji mentions about "Ullengdo and Usando," but nothing about "Dokdo." South Korea has claimed that "Usando" is identical to the present "Dokdo." However, all Korean old maps show that "Usando" has nothing to do with Dokdo, but identical to the present "Jukdo."
Two Islands, Usan and Muleung, are in the sea due east of Uljin-hyun. 【Two Islands are not far away from each other, so if the weather is clear, it's possible to see (each other). in the reign of Silla, they were called 'Usan-guk' or 'Ulleung-do', and the district is 100 li(里) around.】 - Geological document of the king Sejong's authentic record.(1454)
Nobody outside Korea and Japan cares about these two tiny rocks in the ocean. Surely you have better things to do than argue over this? If you want to keep arguing, how about you Japanese give the Hokkaido island back to the natives? Then you can have Dokdo back.
>If you want to keep arguing, how about you Japanese give the Hokkaido island back to the natives?
What kind of common points are there between Takeshima issue and Hokkaido? The facts are that the latest international treaty decided that Takeshima and Hokkaido should belong to Japan, and Korea has breached the international treaty and occupied Takeshima illegally.
Also, you have note that who is famous for having these "territorial issues" in Asia.... Japan. You have problems with China, Philippines and some other countries I don't even know. You live in an island where there is a constant threat of loosing it due to its volcanic activities but trying to get other people's territory just because of that is no good. Alrighty?
@chunghey1 1.Korea had never made a public announcement of dominion of Dokdo. 2.Allies determined to eliminate Takeshima's name from renounced territories on SanFrancisco Treaty after Japanese govt had protested. 3.Korea protested the Treaty but U.S. govt (Dean Rusk) rejected its offer.That's all.
One things, Allies never determined such thing. Their articles says something about the Han peninsula and "surrounding islands" will be returned to Korea. Japan is claiming that Dokdo is not included in "surround islands" when Dokdo is first off clearly closer to Korea and there are fuck ton of historical documents that it belonged to us ever since the creation of the history.
@00019972b or maybe the bigger worry is a larger conflict caused by disregard of the ruling by the ICJ. ICJ rulings do not have to be followed and cannot be enforced. Therefore, if either party dislikes the ruling, it can choose to ignore it. SK has more solid evidence than Japan does in this argument.
Korean people are so crazy about Takeshima (Dokdo), because of their inferiority complex. They didn't fight against Japanese rule before 1945, and their independence was just given by Americans, not achieveed by themselves.
Instead, they have occuped Takeshima, Japanese terriory when Japanese armed forces were down. That island is only the symbol of their victory against Japan. Actually, Korean has experienced is no victory other than robbery of such small islands.
I think I waited long enough? No documents have been addressed. We can safely conclude that all of Korean opinions are based upon "because somebody said so".
One of Korea’s best-kept secrets, Ttongsul is “feces wine”. This drink is made by pouring shochu into a pit full of chicken, dog, or human feces, and leaving the mixture in the pit until it ferments. Human feces is most popular, since it’s readily available from chamber pots. It’s similar to the African drug jenkem, but unlike jenkem, Koreans actually drink the Ttongsul, out of the belief that it can cure illnesses.
Quick question. Treaty of SF did not include Takeshima in the list of islands to be renounced by Japan. Korea requested US to include it. Rusk said NO. This is my understanding, but I'm willing to learn more.
What and where are the supporting documents that says it belongs to Korea? I'd like to review these documents. All comments I see here from Korea side is "Japs are lying!" or "US State Department said this!"
Tell me which "written" documents to review. It has to be in English.
In normal countries, whose people have decent brain, the fact that Dokdo was explicitly removed from the list of islands which should be renounced by Japan simply means "Dokdo should not be renounced by Japan."
@3goku You ignored the reply from GJF who explained about the evidence and go on saying "Japan has no evidence." It is not a way to reach mutual understanding.
@3goku "WHAT EVIDENCE IS THERE THAT PROVES DOKDO BELONGS TO JAPAN?"
The answer is SF Treaty and Rusk document. SF Treaty explains "SF Treaty excluded Dokdo from the list of islands Japan should renounce" means "The list of islands Japan should NOT renounce INCLUDED Dokdo in the SF Treaty". You are not able to convince "rank amateurs", disappointed.
Why don't you come to the hague? I know you are afraid of the truth that Takeshima belongs to Japan. lol
And I have to add one more thing that "Don't pretend Japanese and do bad thing in the world." All of Asian people recognize Korea as the shame of Asia!
Rusk documents was confidential, not shared with Japan nor the Allies. How does it "explain(ed) why the Allies removed Dokdo from the list...". How did the "Allies" use it if they didn't even know of it's existence?
@GloriousJapanForever said "All the Allies knew that Dokdo was removed from the list, and signed the treaty."
I'll make this real simple for you. We'll come back to this (lie) (ahem) statement when you've either answered my first question to you or you concede that nowhere on the SF Treaty does it specifically state the Dokdo belongs to Japan. Deal?
If the San Francisco Peace Treaty didn't EXPLICITLY state that Dokdo is not an island which should be renounced by Japan, why did South Korea send the request to the U.S. government, demanding that Dokdo should be added to the list again?
No you didn't. Where on the SF Treaty does it explicitly state that Dokdo belongs to Japan? If you did answer it then it should be even easier to answer it again wouldn't it (copy and paste)? Otherwise just concede that you were wrong, as you were wrong on the Rusk documents.
>Where on the SF Treaty does it explicitly state that Dokdo belongs to Japan?
I already answers in the following comment. You couldn't answer my question.
"If the San Francisco Peace Treaty didn't EXPLICITLY state that Takeshima is not a island which should be renounced by Japan, why did South Korea send the request to the U.S. government demanding that Dokdo should be added to the list?"
San Francisco Peace Treaty explicitly excluded Dokdo from the list of islands Japan should renounce. This is why South Korea sent the request to the U.S. government demanding that it should be added to the list again. Got it?
So "NO" it does not EXPLICITLY STATE that Dokdo belongs to Japan. You do realize that the sixth, eigth, ninth and fourteenth drafts did explicitly state that it was Japanese territory right? But on the final draft they took it out.
"SF Treaty excluded Dokdo from the list of islands Japan should renounce" is true. Therefore, "The list of islands Japan should NOT renounce INCLUDED Dokdo in the SF Treaty" is true as well. It is contraposition, the ABC of logic.
Where on that quote does it state it belongs to Japan? So is that a round about why of conceding that nowhere on the SF Treaty does it state that it is Japanese territory?
You sure have a funny way of answering direct questions...
By the end of this debate you'll have to redo your top 4 list of "This territorial dispute between Japan and South Korea over Takeshima(Dokdo) is quite simple.". We've already disproven #4 and as soon as you concede my first question, you'll have to get rid of #3 as well.
#4 "..."Rusk documents", they ignored this international determination..."
Rusk documents, confidential notes never shared with Japan nor the Allies, and you call it "international determination". Great way of amplifying a useless note.
So what? The US denied the Korean gov's requirement. Even if it is not regarded as the "International determination", the US, core country of the Allies, explicitly denied the Dokdo is Korean territory. Do the other countries of the Allies disallow the Rusk document?
Whether Rusk document was confidential or not, Dokdo was not added to the list of the islands which should be renounced by Japan in the San Francisco Peace Treaty and 49 countries singed the treaty.
If the San Francisco Peace Treaty didn't EXPLICITLY state that Takeshima belongs to Japan, why did South Korea demand that Dokdo should be added to the list?
Korean government knows that they would lose if this territorial issue is brought to ICJ. Korean government needed to produce anti-Japanese policy and education to make ordinary Koreans to look away from all kind of their domestic problems and criticism toward the government. Korean national identity is only supported by fabricating their own history and anti-Japanese policy and education. Philosophy of aristocrat "Yangban" and Confucianism have poisoned the ruling class of Korea.
日本人の皆さんへ、半島人が来て騒いでるようだが、相手しないのが賢明ですよ。馬鹿を相手するのは人生の無駄遣い、日本を良くするために時間を使おうではありませんか。それと半島人に告ぐ、日本に対して誹謗中傷する暇があるなら、自国をよくし、民度を高めるために努力しなはれ!!!!!
19750726 6 days ago
@19750726
ご意見尤もです。が、朝鮮人が騒いでいることに対し、日本人が黙っていることで、従軍慰安婦・竹島に代表される嘘が半ば既成事実化しており、放置は得策ではないと思います。彼らは過去千年以上に亘る中国の支配で完全におかしくなっています。民度が高まることを期待してはいけません。
当方が朝鮮人のコメントを放置しない目的は、残されたコメントをご覧になられた方に、朝鮮人の嘘・異常性を認識してもらうことです。彼らは平気で酷いスラング・差別用語を多用してくれるので、こちらがそうした言葉を使わず、淡々と事実を提示し問題の本質に切り込んでいけば、自然と如何に朝鮮人が異常であるかが示されると思っています。自己満足に等しい行為ではありますが…
a414g 5 days ago 4
kikijang
@は外したぞ。
当方が望むことは唯一つ、朝鮮が日本に関わらないようになることだけだ。
汚れ子でもバカでも畜生でも何でも良いから二度と来るな。
a414g 1 week ago
Comment removed
chisato220 1 week ago
kikijang 1 week ago
@kikijang
慰安婦は売春婦でしたよ。もうすぐ慰安婦に関する新しい動画が完成するので楽しみにしていていてください。
GloriousJapanForever 1 week ago
Comment removed
a414g 1 week ago
@kikijang
もう来ないと言っていたのに来るとは、余程日本のことが気になるようで。本当に朝鮮人は気持ちが悪い。
現政権が犬の糞以下であることは認めるが、条約すら守らず従軍慰安婦等の嘘を吹聴して回る朝鮮政府よりは遥かにマシだ。
福島のことや原発のことを朝鮮人にとやかく言われる筋合いはない。とにかく日本に関心を持つな。自分でもう来ないと言ったのだからここにも二度と来るな。
a414g 1 week ago
@a414g // レベル以下のやつだな。
汚れ子。
私にメッセージを送らないようにした
あんたバカ？
そう精神の勝利を望んでいる。？
君は今日から畜生である。*^-----------^*
kikijang 1 week ago
お前らのお気に入りは、全く面白くない。
歪んだ人生観は、いつからだった。？
最後の忠告ですが、あなたがたの右翼分子の、
パリの群れのようにブンブンかのいけないく、
私は一人なのに息もできないがあまり暴れる。
根性は良いまったく生産性がない音だけ響くのだよ、
私さよならも言わないで
私が見るには、君たちの日本は終了します。
グッバイ〜さよなら。 *^----------^*
kikijang 1 week ago
@kikijang
終了する国に何故関心を持つのでしょう。朝鮮人は理解できません。永遠に日本に関心を持たないで下さい。国交を断絶しても結構です。
朝鮮とは関わりたくはありませんが、竹島は日本の領土ですので、朝鮮が不法占拠を止めるまでは淡々と事実を拡散し続けます。さようなら。今度こそ二度と来ないで下さいね。
a414g 1 week ago in playlist WJFの名作動画 Best Videos by WJF Project 4
そして私のチャンネルに卑怯に文字テロをしないでください。
君たちの日本人たちが卑怯だという証拠だから。
もう一度言いますが、
私は完全な日本人は好きだ。
右翼分子は、引き
もうこれ以上、あなたがたの右翼分子との対話は終わりだ。
本当に時間が惜しい。
kikijang 1 week ago
@kikijang
少なくともこの動画に関心を持つ日本人は貴方を含む朝鮮人が嫌いです。
さようなら、二度と来ないでください。
a414g 1 week ago
kikijang 1 week ago
@kikijang
私が右翼なら、南朝鮮は右翼集団国家になる。私を右翼と呼びたいなら、それでかまわない。でも私は自分の指を切断して抗議したり、それを韓国大使館に送ったり、暴力で訴えたりはしない・・日本では日韓問題でもいろいろな意見が飛び交う。いろいろな角度から問題を冷静に客観的にみれる人間がいるが、韓国はどうだろう？従軍慰安婦などいないとネットで発言したら逮捕してしまう・・発言の自由に規制がかかり過ぎている。ある意味怖い国だと知った。
日本のあげ足とろうとする前に、自国の反省もして欲しい。
世界の一番汚い企業投票で、東電に続き２位はサムスンですよ。お忘れなく（知ってたかな？）。それから、済州島の世界７大自然景観の投票に済州の公務員が１億回以上も電話投票していたという恥ずかしい事実も。
他国の失態はよく見えるもので、自国の失態を棚に上げて騒いでも恥ずかしいだけ。
悪口言い合っていてもなんの解決にもならないよね？
あなたは日本語が上手だから、呉善花さんのように日本にある文献にも客観的に目を通してみたらいい。日本は大韓民国よりは情報規制もかかっていないから。
mm9624 1 week ago 2
@mm9624 //あなたのYouTubeチャンネルに"お気に入り"に登録した動画は、
右翼性向。ok？
私にメッセージを送らないようにした
やっぱりあなた右翼分子は、馬鹿ばかりだな。
精神の勝利が必要な場合そのようにしてください。 ^^
汚れたイメージを見つけるとしたら、あなたがたもそれだけある。
泥沼の戦いは、
私のイメージに似合わない、
kikijang 1 week ago
あなた右翼はゴミな理由。
上記の韓国人(sooncool123)が提示した資料を迷惑メールとして処理される
馬鹿ばかり。
あなたは愚かな根性で口を生きてジョジャルデヌン真ゴミ。
kikijang 1 week ago
どうしよう、放射性
お前ら右翼は放射能の問題は論外事項です。？
一体なぜ隠そうとばかりするのかな？
さよなら。日本の^^
kikijang 1 week ago
私文送る奴はネトウヨしかないね。
私はゴミとは会話をしたい気がしない。
原発4号機の心配をするネトオイクウンませんが、？ ^^
君たちも暇だ。 *^-------^*
kikijang 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Japanese CAR very good
LEXAS king of world
HYUND○I is BAD
Japanese soccer ASIA NO1
chosen Asia ranking no13
YAMATOsuperJapanese 1 week ago
kikijang 1 week ago
@kikijang
賢明な一部の韓国人は糾弾され、逮捕される社会。それが南北朝鮮。
0907meow 1 week ago
@kikijang
日本人からみた韓国人とは決して良くないイメージ。すぐに頭に血がのぼりやすく、暴力に訴え、デモが大好き。そして自己の反省を嫌う。日本を悪者にしていれば愛国心があると思い狂ったように反日唱える。しかし、日本からのODAや賠償金はしっかり受け取る。そして後になってから難癖つけて更にたかる。日本への劣等感か、嫉妬か、、、常に日本と自国を比べたがる。 日韓併合などせず、西欧に食われていく朝鮮を見届けてやればよかった。朝鮮に日本の国家予算などつかわず、貧しい李氏朝鮮のままに放置しておけばよかった。反日が国策となってきた韓国人には真実の歴史など受け入れられないだろう。
mm9624 1 week ago 9
@kikijang
ところで、
”過去の歴史の中で学びなさい。 歪曲しないで ”とあるが、八百長国家の韓国に言われたくない。野球、バレー、サッカー、フィギュアスケート八百長と汚いスポーツする韓国に！
”日本人が韓国に遊びに来れば、それらを攻撃したことがあったか？”とあるが、攻撃しないのが当たり前のことだとわかる？そんなこと自慢できない・・
”君たちは放射能流出の問題は、沈黙し、常に韓国人を話題にして路上で韓流のデモをしない” ←原発は今対策を練っている段階。それと韓流デモとは別の話で、韓流はウザイだけ。
韓国政府の国家ブランド委員会が韓国人の税金使い作りあげた捏造人気って知ってる？
知らないだろうな・・年間600億円？もかけて収支は赤字って・・アホらし。
”賢明な一部の日本人の意見は無視される社会”← 圧倒的な嫌韓流の声が消される社会の間違い。なぜかわかる？慰安婦問題と同様に日韓の関係悪化を回避したい日本政府と韓国政府に金で買収された日本のマスコミがいるから。
mm9624 1 week ago 4
1877年、日本が製作した磯竹島略図（矶竹岛略图）
少なくとも、あなたがたの先祖は、かなり良心があったが、
現在の君たちの日本人たち
良心がないね。
kikijang 1 week ago
@kikijang
韓国人とは自分の行いは棚にあげ、日本側の主張になると急に目くじら立てて狂いだす。
まるで狂犬病そのもの。
猿などと日本人を馬鹿にするが、自分の顔を鏡でみたことがあるのか？
その猿の金欲しさにミニスカートはき、尻を振り、作り笑顔で毎度毎度来日しているのはどこの猿だ？中央日報はその事実隠しに必死だが、日本にどれだけ嫌韓がいるか知っている？
ほとんど嫌韓だよ。反日なら矛盾することせずに、日本へ来なくて結構。みんなそれを望んでいる。日韓は決してわかり合えることのない関係。さよなら韓国。
mm9624 1 week ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
ちょっとまともに知ってしゃべるせよ。
放射能漏れでも気になると
情けない猿だ。 ^^
kikijang 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
百嘘をしても絶対に変わらないこともある。
それは真実である。
"竹島"------>この島は日本にあるんじゃない、
一体、いくつかの竹島をウォンハニ？
恥ずかしくないの、？
戦犯国が放射能猿だ。 ^^
kikijang 1 week ago
GloriousJapanForever//
一言だけよ、
1877年、日本が製作した磯竹島略図（矶竹岛略图）で独島を韓国の領土だとお前らは述べた。
kikijang 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
三国時代からずっと韓国は日本に多くの情報と技術を持ってきた。
また、壬辰倭乱は日本の多くの韓国の文化祭と文書を奪ってであった。
私は今理解していドェヌンは、いったいなぜ日本人は貧しい人々がしなければならだろうか？
sooncool123 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
한국 고지도에 나타난 우산도는 독도라는 주제로 우산도와 독도가 동일한 섬임을 입증했습니다..
일본은 팔도총도(1530)에서 독도(우산도)와 울릉도의 위치가 뒤바뀐 것을 두고 우산도는 독도가 아니라고 주장하고 있습니다.
8세기부터 16세기까지 일본의 공식지도로 사용된 교키도에 존재하지도 않는 나라가 그려진 것을 비판하지 않고, 한국의 고지도만 비판했다고 일침을 가했습니다.
또 일본은 한국지도에 나타난 우산도가 울릉도 동쪽 2km거리에 위치한 죽도(죽서도)라고 주장하지만, 실제 죽도에는 산봉우리가 없고 독도에는 산봉우리가 존재합니다!!..
이에 산봉우리가 있는 우산도는 독도일 수 밖에 없는 증거이며,
18세기에 제작된 [강원도 지도], 19세기 중반에 제작된 [해동여지도] 등에 그려진 우산도에는 산봉우리가 있기 때문에
결론적으로 산봉우리 존재로 독도라는 사실을 입증할 수 있습니다
sooncool123 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
②[일본, 전쟁을 위해 독도를 강제로 편입 !]
러ㆍ일전쟁 당시 외무성 정무국장으로 대러선전포고 원문을 기초한 야마자 엔지로(山座円次郞)는 '독도를 한국의 영토인 줄 알고' 임대신청서를 제출하기 위해 찾아온 나카이 요사부로(中井養三郞)에게 "이 시국이야말로 독도의 영토편입이 필요하다. 독도에 망루를 설치하고 무선 또는 해저전선을 설치하면 적함을 감시하는 데 극히 좋지 않겠는가?"라고 발언하였습니다
sooncool123 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
①[일본 메이지 정부, 독도는 조선의 영토 !]
1876.10월 시마네현 : 공문을 통해 '울릉도와 독도를 시마네현(島根縣)에 포함시킬 것인가'의 여부에 관해 내무성에 질의
1877.3월 내무성 : 1696년에 끝난 문제로 울릉도와 독도는 조선의 영토로서'일본과 관계가 없다(本邦關係無之)' 결정
1877.3월 태정관(太政官) : '품의한 취지의 울릉도외 1도의 건에 대해서 일본은 관계가 없다는 것을 명심할 것'이라는 최종 결정
1877.4월 내무성 : 최종 결정문을 시마네현에 전달하여 '울릉도와 독도를 시마네현에 포함시키지 말 것'을 지시
sooncool123 1 week ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
愚かな倭人猿たち、
過去からあそこは"朝鮮海""東海"と呼ばれてきた。
"独島"もお前らが韓国の領土だと認めている。
歴史歪曲してはならない。
放射能の汚れ状態。 개쪽바리 새끼들, 방사능에 절어 살아라. ㅎㅎㅎㅎ
kikijang 2 weeks ago
@kikijang
「日本海」という名称は19世紀のはじめにロシアのクルーゼンシュテルン提督の書いた航海記『アレクサンドル1世陛下の命令下、1803年、1804年、1805年、1806年にナジェージタとネヴァにより行った世界周航の記録』がヨーロッパに広まったことにより、ヨーロッパで、国際的な地名として確立されたものであり、日本の帝国主義と全く無関係です。既に国際的に隔離されて200年も経過している名称を、一国の自己中心な主張で変えるべきではありません。
私たちも、朝鮮人が、日本海を東海と呼んできたことは十分知っていますが、日本海は、韓国から見た場合だけ「東の海」なのですから、これを全世界に人々に使うように強制するのは馬鹿げています。中国では「東海」とは東シナ海のことをさすので、中国ですらも、あなたがたの主張には反対しています。
GloriousJapanForever 2 weeks ago 12
This has been flagged as spam show
Dokdo is obviously Korean territory.
fieldmedic7 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
fieldmedic7 2 weeks ago
@GloriousJapanForever
竹島関連動画の拡散にご協力ください、とは、どのようなことを、するということですか。
協力できることがあったら、私もやってみたいです。
solka1895 2 weeks ago
@solka1895
竹島に関する知識や関心が日本中に広がるように、竹島関連の動画やサイトを、ツイッターやSNS、掲示板やブログで宣伝していただけるとうれしいです。
GloriousJapanForever 2 weeks ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
wow best of liar japan :(
nozomii2 2 weeks ago
I have a question. Doesn't Takeshima mean bamboo island? Why do you call a island with no bamboos a "bamboo island?"
whatismyiddoyouknow 3 weeks ago
@whatismyiddoyouknow
松竹梅(Pine, Bamboo, Plum) is a traditional way of counting things in Japan, each of which means "Primary, Secondary, Tertiary." Japanese called the Liancourt Rocks as "Matsushima (Primary Island)" and the Ulleungdo island as Takeshima (Secondary Island) in the Edo period. In the 19th century, when European maps which wrongly depicted two Ulleungdos were introduced to Japan, there occurred a confusion. Then, the Liancourt Rocks came to be called as "Takeshima."
GloriousJapanForever 3 weeks ago 5
Nasty ppl ....
CreatedOnly4U 3 weeks ago
youtube.com/watch?v=J_R1DJMf_cY&feature=related
eugeneluv 1 month ago
1. Korean claims that the Takeshima had belonged to Korea prior to 1905.
2. Many Japanese ask them to show the practical evidence.
3. The Korean can not show it, and he/she stops to discuss it.
4. Another Korean starts to claim 1. again.
This is the easily-understand sample of argument concerning historical issue between Japan and Korea. It is eternal loop. Even loopy.
a414g 1 month ago
@GloriousJapanForever AH.... that got me frustrated Every korean know we had effective controle over Dok Do when Jpn has none but one with 1905, You say Korea never sailed to Dok do?? Go to google and type 'Why is Dokdo a Korean island, and Takeshima a fiction?'and read carefully before you reply
EELNNS2 1 month ago
@EELNNS2
>Every korean know we had effective controle over Dok Do
Then, why can't you show us any evidence than the fact that Dokdo is visible from the Ullungdo island.
GloriousJapanForever 1 month ago 2
@GloriousJapanForever AH!!!! its written in Sejongsilokjiriji that Usando(old name for Dok Do) is vislble from Ullengdo and have you went into to the site i recommanded you ?
guess you couldn't admit those evidences, could you? Its all written there
the fact Korea had control over Dok do from way before 1905 and that Dok do is visible from Ullengdo and that Usando is an old name for Dokdo
EELNNS2 1 month ago
@EELNNS2
Just as I told, the fact that some island is visible from some place doesn't work as evidence of effective control of the island. If so, we Japanese could claim the Korean peninsula simply because it is visible from our land. Actually International law (Island of Palmas Case) says as follows.
"Title based on contiguity has no standing in international law."
"Title by discovery is only an inchoate title. "
GloriousJapanForever 1 month ago
@GloriousJapanForever
Go google "'Why is Dokdo a Korean island, and Takeshima a fiction" and read the first website. For some reason, i cannot paste the URL so, just go and read them carefully. It has all the evidences
EELNNS2 1 month ago
@EELNNS2
I know all "evidences" South Korea has shown us. All are about Japan saying this or that or the island being visible from some place. We can see no evidence of effective control of Dokdo prior to 1905.
GloriousJapanForever 1 month ago
@GloriousJapanForever i mean it, just go into damn site and read them all, it has an Old Korean history docments that proves KOREA had effective control over Dok Do since long time ago You DONT know all the evidences South Korea has shown. i guess u r too sacred to take the truths
EELNNS2 1 month ago
@EELNNS2
I did, but couldn't find any evidence of Korea's effective control of Dokdo prior to 1905.
GloriousJapanForever 1 month ago 2
@EELNNS2
Which are you mentioning as the evidence of "effective control" of Dokdo? Most of them are about "Japan was saying this" or "Japan was saying that."
GloriousJapanForever 1 month ago
@GloriousJapanForever You say you couldnt find any ? guess i have to copy and paste them all for you
Some Korean history books provide an explicit description of ownership of Dokdo. A 1756 History book titled "Border History" (강계고; 疆界考) by Gyeong-Jun Shin describes historical borders of the Korean territory. A pertinent section states:
EELNNS2 1 month ago
@GloriousJapanForever
"In my considered opinion, the statement in Yeojiji (여지지; 輿地志; note: Presently, no extant copy of this book is available) is correct, which states that 'although some dumb people theorize that Ulleungdo and Usan are one island, consideration of many maps leads to the conclusion that there are two distinct islands. One is what the Japanese refer to as Songdo (송도; 松島; Matsushima in Japanese). These two islands belong to Usan-guk (于山國).'"
EELNNS2 1 month ago
@GloriousJapanForever
Other Korean history books that also show Korean ownership of Dokdo include: Mangi Yoram (만기요람; 萬機要覽) of 1808, History of the East (해동역사; 海東繹史) of 1823, and Revised Encyclopedia of Records (증보문헌비고; 增補文獻備考) of 1907
EELNNS2 1 month ago
@EELNNS2
That's a Jukdo, not a Dokdo.
Griffon868 1 month ago in playlist Favorite videos
@shirohige5334 you don't know true korean and Joseon history . you must study true korean and Joseon history.
tk55555ful 1 month ago
@shirohige5334 you must study korean and Joseon history .It's Takeshima. Japanese Territory.
tk55555ful 1 month ago
@shirohige5334
There are NO islands which are called as "Dokudo" in the world except Korea. Also, Korean has distorted the historical name of "Dokudo" as @GloriousJapanForever mentioned in discussing with @S20ham. You should follow it and recognize that there are no historical fact and evidence that "Dokudo" had belonged to Korea.
a414g 1 month ago in playlist WJFの名作動画 Best Videos by WJF Project
「Usan-guk」=「Ulleung-do」=「Usan-do + Muleung-do」.
Usan-do is present Dok-do, and Muleung-do is present Ulleung-do.
The island you are talking about is Jukdo which locates 2km from Ulleng-do
Therefore, you can see Jukdo from Ulleng-do whenever you want to, even
if it's windy and a bad weather so the Saejongsilokjiriji is actually mentioning
about Dok Do
S20ham 1 month ago
@S20ham
You explained by yourself.
"Two Islands, Usan and Muleung, are in the sea due east of Uljin-hyun. Two Islands are not far away from each other, and visible if the weather is clear, "
This description says "two islands are visible from Uljin-hyun"
Reason.
1. Dokdo is not lie in the "due east of Uljing-hyun."
2. We can't say Ulleungdo and Dokdo are "not far" from each other.
3. Ulleungdo and Dokdo don't lie within100ri = 40km circumference.
GloriousJapanForever 1 month ago
@GloriousJapanForever
wow.. you just changed the meaning ... original document says "Two Islands are not far away from each other, SO if the weather is clear, it's possible to see (each other)." You wrote AND on your sample instead of SO, which changes the entire sentence's meaning.
It says, they are NOT FAR FROM EACH OTHER SO, visible if the weather is celar
THis means ppl could see DOKDO FROM ULLENGDO, u get it now?
S20ham 1 month ago
@S20ham
Can you read original text written in Chinese language? Also, have you read the whole chapter before and after the description? The chapter was an article written about Uljin-hyun, so the description is stating what they could see from Uljin-hyun. Korean Dokdo researchers have distorted the meaning of the original text reckoning that most Koreans cannot read Chinese sentences.
GloriousJapanForever 1 month ago
@GloriousJapanForever You say korea distored the history? i thought that was kinda thing japan is used to do. I asked my Chninese friends and he said the translation is correct and said sentence was about two islands
If you can't admit that, I'll give you another evidence ヤンコ島 - 鬱陵島より東南の方約三十里、我が隠岐国を西北に距ること殆ど同…於て、
無人の一島であり、晴天の際鬱陵島山峰の高所より之を望むを得べし...
-韓海通漁指針 한해통어지침 1903-
This document was written in Jpn and it proves that Dok Do can be seen from Ullengdo
S20ham 1 month ago
@S20ham
All "evidences" you show us are merely "Japanese said this," "japanese said that." Can't you show us any concrete and clear evidence that Chosun was actually conducting effective control over Dokdo prior to 1905? Why can't you show us such an evidence to us?
GloriousJapanForever 1 month ago
@GloriousJapanForever i showed you evidence of Sejongsillokjiriji written in 1454 ACE and you wouldn't
admit that Usando was Dok do and I wouldn't admit it isn't so, why dont we just
stop here it seems like a never ending conversation.. :(
btw thanks for replying my comments, i would research more about your theory as well
S20ham 1 month ago
@S20ham
For an island to be visible from some place is nothing an evidence of "effective control." Actually, the fact that there is no old Korean map which depicted Dokdo as two islets which lied 90 east-southeast of the Ulleungdo island even though they were visible from the island simply means that Koreans had never sailed to the islet during the Chosun dynasty. If Koreans had never sailed to Dokdo then, it means Koreans had no effective control of the islets prior to 1905. Period.
GloriousJapanForever 1 month ago
@S20ham
Why could the documents you proposed be the evidence that "Dokudo" should belong to Korea? Japan has many old maps and formal documents which show the existence of Takeshima as Japanese territory. However, Korea has not recognized it as the evidence Takeshima belongs to Japan. I think your logic is contradicting.
a414g 1 month ago in playlist WJFの名作動画 Best Videos by WJF Project
S20ham 1 month ago
@S20ham
Ok, then, please show us any concrete evidence which shows that Chosun had effective control of Dokdo prior to 1905. According to international law, you can't claim title to an island without peaceful and long-term effective control. As far as I know, there is no historical fact that Chosun had ever conducted any effective control over the islets which are now called Dokdo.
GloriousJapanForever 1 month ago
@GloriousJapanForever You said that 1905 Feb 22nd, Jpn claimed that Dok do is their island however, this doesn't mean anything cause, Jpn annexed korea in 1904
And we got all our lands back at 1945, by our independence and by the
Cairo declaration
Also, you are talking about 'prior to 1905', if you look at the Korean history, Dok do has been conquered by Lee Sa Bu,the korean army general in 512 BCE
Also other many documents that exists hundreads of yrs ago proves this
S20ham 1 month ago
@GloriousJapanForever You say dok do was Japan's island since 100yrs ago when it was Korea's since
1500 yrs ago
That doesn't make any sense
S20ham 1 month ago
@S20ham
Japan saying that Dokdo belongs to Korea is not evidence that Chosun had ever conducted effective control over Dokdo prior to 1905. i'm asking you to show us the evidence that Chosun had ever conducted effective control over the island prior to 1905 to us. There is no such evidence, since there is not such a historical fact.
GloriousJapanForever 1 month ago
@GloriousJapanForever With wat evidence do you say there is no historical fact?
in Saejongsilokjiriji written in 1454 ACE, Dok do was mationed as Korea's island and since then, Korea had effective control over Dok do
Even if Korea didn't, you think other country can steal the island that already has an owner?
You are theory just makes me laugh
S20ham 1 month ago
@S20ham
>Saejongsilokjiriji written in 1454 ACE, Dok do was mationed as Korea's island and since then, Korea had effective control over Dok do
Saejongsilokjiriji mentions about "Ullengdo and Usando," but nothing about "Dokdo." South Korea has claimed that "Usando" is identical to the present "Dokdo." However, all Korean old maps show that "Usando" has nothing to do with Dokdo, but identical to the present "Jukdo."
watch?v=H91QN6ho8jU
GloriousJapanForever 1 month ago
@GloriousJapanForever
于山、武陵二島在(蔚珍)縣正東海中。【二島相去不遠, 風日淸明, 則可望見。 新羅時, 稱于山國, 一云鬱陵島。 地方百里。】 - 世宗實錄地理志(1454)
Two Islands, Usan and Muleung, are in the sea due east of Uljin-hyun. 【Two Islands are not far away from each other, so if the weather is clear, it's possible to see (each other). in the reign of Silla, they were called 'Usan-guk' or 'Ulleung-do', and the district is 100 li(里) around.】 - Geological document of the king Sejong's authentic record.(1454)
S20ham 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GloriousJapanForever
「Usan-guk」=「Ulleung-do」=「Usan-do + Muleung-do」.
Usan-do is present Dok-do, and Muleung-do is present Ulleung-do.
The island you are talking about is Jukdo which locates 2km from Ulleng-do
Therefore, you can see Jukdo from Ulleng-do whenever you want to, even
if it's windy and a bad weather so the Saejongsilokjiriji is actually mentioning
about Dok Do which you cannot see without good weather
S20ham 1 month ago
Where is East Sea? Also Where is
Dokuto on the official world map?
irukanbo 2 months ago
Comment removed
irukanbo 2 months ago
A lot of Koreans here, eh? Like some guys were saying, show us the written documents that state Takeshima belongs to Korea.
And Japan, you guys should be bringing this issue to Hague every single year. Don't quit over a few times of getting ignored.
TheTruthonlyist 2 months ago in playlist WJFの名作動画 Best Videos by WJF Project
Nobody outside Korea and Japan cares about these two tiny rocks in the ocean. Surely you have better things to do than argue over this? If you want to keep arguing, how about you Japanese give the Hokkaido island back to the natives? Then you can have Dokdo back.
WC2002Truth 2 months ago in playlist WJFの名作動画 Best Videos by WJF Project
@WC2002Truth Takeshima is Japanese Territory.
tk55555ful 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@WC2002Truth
>If you want to keep arguing, how about you Japanese give the Hokkaido island back to the natives?
What kind of common points are there between Takeshima issue and Hokkaido? The facts are that the latest international treaty decided that Takeshima and Hokkaido should belong to Japan, and Korea has breached the international treaty and occupied Takeshima illegally.
a414g 2 months ago in playlist WJFの名作動画 Best Videos by WJF Project
Also, you have note that who is famous for having these "territorial issues" in Asia.... Japan. You have problems with China, Philippines and some other countries I don't even know. You live in an island where there is a constant threat of loosing it due to its volcanic activities but trying to get other people's territory just because of that is no good. Alrighty?
chunghey1 2 months ago
@chunghey1 1.Korea had never made a public announcement of dominion of Dokdo. 2.Allies determined to eliminate Takeshima's name from renounced territories on SanFrancisco Treaty after Japanese govt had protested. 3.Korea protested the Treaty but U.S. govt (Dean Rusk) rejected its offer.That's all.
Daviysoh 2 months ago in playlist WJFの名作動画 Best Videos by WJF Project 3
One things, Allies never determined such thing. Their articles says something about the Han peninsula and "surrounding islands" will be returned to Korea. Japan is claiming that Dokdo is not included in "surround islands" when Dokdo is first off clearly closer to Korea and there are fuck ton of historical documents that it belonged to us ever since the creation of the history.
chunghey1 2 months ago
My favorite part is 2:58~
Griffon868 3 months ago
Some people are afraid of a court of justice. For example, a thief.
00019972b 3 months ago in playlist GJFの名作動画 Best Videos by GJF 9
@00019972b or maybe the bigger worry is a larger conflict caused by disregard of the ruling by the ICJ. ICJ rulings do not have to be followed and cannot be enforced. Therefore, if either party dislikes the ruling, it can choose to ignore it. SK has more solid evidence than Japan does in this argument.
ChangminsLuvr 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Korean people are so crazy about Takeshima (Dokdo), because of their inferiority complex. They didn't fight against Japanese rule before 1945, and their independence was just given by Americans, not achieveed by themselves.
Instead, they have occuped Takeshima, Japanese terriory when Japanese armed forces were down. That island is only the symbol of their victory against Japan. Actually, Korean has experienced is no victory other than robbery of such small islands.
2008venom 3 months ago
Hello Mr.GloriousJpnforever. your vids are well researched and creative. I learned many things from your vids. Thank you.
sailplanejapanese 3 months ago 39
I think I waited long enough? No documents have been addressed. We can safely conclude that all of Korean opinions are based upon "because somebody said so".
mochicruise 4 months ago
@mochicruise
The answer is very simple, my friend, South Korea has no evidence.
That's why they can't show up in ICJ.
They can have tons of parades, they can make as many ads as they want,
They will do anything BUT going to ICJ.
Why? coz they know if they go, they will lose.
you know it too right? :)
NickDan555 3 months ago 6
This has been flagged as spam show
Japan took all from korean.
20 million people's korean was killed from 1900 to 1945.
And 50,000 or more people are arrested by the Japanese government, and the Korean resident in Japan is executed every year.
2008 51000 persons
2009 56000 persons
2010 67000 persons
It is false korean altogether.
Japan has to disappear from the earth.
All Japanese should die.
coreamax 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
One of Korea’s best-kept secrets, Ttongsul is “feces wine”. This drink is made by pouring shochu into a pit full of chicken, dog, or human feces, and leaving the mixture in the pit until it ferments. Human feces is most popular, since it’s readily available from chamber pots. It’s similar to the African drug jenkem, but unlike jenkem, Koreans actually drink the Ttongsul, out of the belief that it can cure illnesses.
jhhanakawa 4 months ago
Quick question. Treaty of SF did not include Takeshima in the list of islands to be renounced by Japan. Korea requested US to include it. Rusk said NO. This is my understanding, but I'm willing to learn more.
What and where are the supporting documents that says it belongs to Korea? I'd like to review these documents. All comments I see here from Korea side is "Japs are lying!" or "US State Department said this!"
Tell me which "written" documents to review. It has to be in English.
mochicruise 4 months ago 7
Comment removed
Griffon868 4 months ago
@3goku
You the same. Remember, Think why no description about Takeshima belongs to Korea or
the same meanings of the word on the SF treaty. Cancel a treaty and it cannot redo it.
It was resulted the omission and lack of ability of the South Korean diplomacy.
In the past, it cannot return.
This is not an interpretative problem.
techlabjpn 4 months ago 5
Comment removed
a414g 4 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Wow, so I guess the debate is over huh GJF. Japan has no evidence. Well that was short...and easy.
When do you know you've won a debate?
What is the sound of capitulation?
Silence...
Go study up guys, don't let the door hit you on your ass on the way out. Lift your head, don't be too sad, tomorrows another day.
Buh-bye... :)
3goku 4 months ago
@3goku
In normal countries, whose people have decent brain, the fact that Dokdo was explicitly removed from the list of islands which should be renounced by Japan simply means "Dokdo should not be renounced by Japan."
GloriousJapanForever 4 months ago 38
@3goku You ignored the reply from GJF who explained about the evidence and go on saying "Japan has no evidence." It is not a way to reach mutual understanding.
TheAugustYellow 4 months ago
@3goku
YOU'RE REALLY WELL-DISCIPLINED KOREAN. LOL
BEER0121 3 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Wow, so I guess the debate is over. Japan has no evidence. Well that was short...and easy.
When do you know you've won a debate?
What is the sound of capitulation?
Silence...
Go study up guys, don't let the door hit you on your ass on the way out. Lift your head, don't be too sad, tomorrows another day.
Buh-bye... :)
3goku 4 months ago
@3goku
I went to the dentist and returned from it now.
GloriousJapanForever 4 months ago 11
Just so that everyone stays on point. The discussion for today is:
"WHAT EVIDENCE IS THERE THAT PROVES DOKDO BELONGS TO JAPAN?"
3goku 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@3goku "WHAT EVIDENCE IS THERE THAT PROVES DOKDO BELONGS TO JAPAN?"
The answer is SF Treaty and Rusk document. SF Treaty explains "SF Treaty excluded Dokdo from the list of islands Japan should renounce" means "The list of islands Japan should NOT renounce INCLUDED Dokdo in the SF Treaty". You are not able to convince "rank amateurs", disappointed.
a414g 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@3goku
WHAT EVIDENCE IS THERE THAT PROVES TAKESHIMA BELONGS TO KOREA?
If you have absolute proof that it belongs to yours, bring it to Hague and show it to them.
That is the place you should go and debate. Save your breath until then.
No beating around the bush. Just get to it.
mm9624 4 months ago
Awwww, look at the litte'uns come to defend big papa bear. Isn't it so cute?
Unfortunately both of you are rank amateurs. Stay out of it.
3goku 4 months ago
@GloriousJapanForever
Again very simple question. Just answer it. Even little children in Korea knows how to answer very DIRECT and EASY question.
3goku 4 months ago
Why don't you come to the hague? I know you are afraid of the truth that Takeshima belongs to Japan. lol
And I have to add one more thing that "Don't pretend Japanese and do bad thing in the world." All of Asian people recognize Korea as the shame of Asia!
UmaiGenmaicha 4 months ago 3
@UmaiGenmaicha said "Don't pretend Japanese do bad thing..."
Yes, we shouldn't pretend. Everyone just needs to open up their history books to see "Japanese do bad things" during WW2. :)
3goku 4 months ago
@UmaiGenmaicha said "Why don't you come to the hague?...Takeshima belongs to Japan. lol"
What was that whole "lol" at the end about???
Anyway, wouldn't Japan need some proof that Dokdo belongs to them before going to the "Hague"? Would you like to explain to me what this proof is?
3goku 4 months ago
@3goku
Here you are.
watch?v=LKlXq7ZMy6M
GloriousJapanForever 4 months ago
@GloriousJapanForever
SF Treaty? Rusk documents?
I don't see any proof that Dokdo belongs to Japan...sorry.
3goku 4 months ago
@3goku
When international treaty determined that Takeshima belong to Japan, it means that Takeshima belongs to Japan. Got it?
GloriousJapanForever 4 months ago
@GloriousJapanForever said "When international treaty determined that Takeshima belong to Japan, it means..."
Where on the treaty does it EXPLICITLY state that Dokdo belongs to Japan? Very simple question.
3goku 4 months ago
@3goku
Rusk document explicitly explained why the Allies removed Dokdo from the list of islands Japan should renounce.
GloriousJapanForever 4 months ago
@GloriousJapanForever
Rusk documents was confidential, not shared with Japan nor the Allies. How does it "explain(ed) why the Allies removed Dokdo from the list...". How did the "Allies" use it if they didn't even know of it's existence?
3goku 4 months ago
@3goku
Then please explain why Dokdo was removed from the list of islands, though it had been there in the earlier version of the drafts.
GloriousJapanForever 4 months ago
@GloriousJapanForever
What are we playing "YOU ANSWER FIRST"? Are you in fourth grade?
3goku 4 months ago
@GloriousJapanForever
REALLY? The great GLORIOUSJAPANFOREVER can't answer a simple question. You realize we haven't gotten past my first question to you right?
3goku 4 months ago
@3goku
I already answered your question.
GloriousJapanForever 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GloriousJapanForever said "I already answered your question."
I don't know, help me out here. The question was "Where on the treaty does it EXPLICITLY state that Dokdo belongs to Japan? Very simple question."
What was you're reply? I can't find it...
3goku 4 months ago
@3goku
Just bear in mind.
YOU CAN'T OWN THINGS JUST BY RANTING "THIS IS MINE."
Maybe parents don't teach such things when you are a child in Korea.
GloriousJapanForever 4 months ago
@GloriousJapanForever
Yeah, yeah just answer the question. And how about the Rusk documents? Anything you want to add (or backpeddle) about that glitch in your reasoning?
3goku 4 months ago
@3goku
Ruck Document?
South Korea demanded to America that Dokdo should be added to the list again, and America replied "NO." That's all.
GloriousJapanForever 4 months ago
@GloriousJapanForever
There you go again ducking and dodging. How could the Allies use it if they didn't know of it's existence?
You Japanese nationalist are real good at making bold statements, not very good at backing them up with proof.
3goku 4 months ago
@3goku
All the Allies knew that Dokdo was removed from the list, and signed the treaty.
GloriousJapanForever 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GloriousJapanForever said "All the Allies knew that Dokdo was removed from the list, and signed the treaty."
I'll make this real simple for you. We'll come back to this (lie) (ahem) statement when you've either answered my first question to you or you concede that nowhere on the SF Treaty does it specifically state the Dokdo belongs to Japan. Deal?
3goku 4 months ago
@3goku
You've not answered my question.
If the San Francisco Peace Treaty didn't EXPLICITLY state that Dokdo is not an island which should be renounced by Japan, why did South Korea send the request to the U.S. government, demanding that Dokdo should be added to the list again?
GloriousJapanForever 4 months ago
@3goku
No answer? Did you run way?
GloriousJapanForever 4 months ago
@GloriousJapanForever
I'm waiting for you. I want to stop you from ducking and dodging questions so do we have a deal?
3goku 4 months ago
@GloriousJapanForever
No answer? DID YOU RUN AWAY?
3goku 4 months ago
@3goku
I already replied to your question.
It is your turn.
GloriousJapanForever 4 months ago
@GloriousJapanForever
No you didn't. Where on the SF Treaty does it explicitly state that Dokdo belongs to Japan? If you did answer it then it should be even easier to answer it again wouldn't it (copy and paste)? Otherwise just concede that you were wrong, as you were wrong on the Rusk documents.
3goku 4 months ago
@3goku
>Where on the SF Treaty does it explicitly state that Dokdo belongs to Japan?
I already answers in the following comment. You couldn't answer my question.
"If the San Francisco Peace Treaty didn't EXPLICITLY state that Takeshima is not a island which should be renounced by Japan, why did South Korea send the request to the U.S. government demanding that Dokdo should be added to the list?"
GloriousJapanForever 4 months ago
Comment removed
3goku 4 months ago
@3goku
San Francisco Peace Treaty explicitly excluded Dokdo from the list of islands Japan should renounce. This is why South Korea sent the request to the U.S. government demanding that it should be added to the list again. Got it?
GloriousJapanForever 4 months ago
@GloriousJapanForever
So "NO" it does not EXPLICITLY STATE that Dokdo belongs to Japan. You do realize that the sixth, eigth, ninth and fourteenth drafts did explicitly state that it was Japanese territory right? But on the final draft they took it out.
3goku 4 months ago
@3goku
"SF Treaty excluded Dokdo from the list of islands Japan should renounce" is true. Therefore, "The list of islands Japan should NOT renounce INCLUDED Dokdo in the SF Treaty" is true as well. It is contraposition, the ABC of logic.
a414g 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GloriousJapanForever
Where on that quote does it state it belongs to Japan? So is that a round about why of conceding that nowhere on the SF Treaty does it state that it is Japanese territory?
You sure have a funny way of answering direct questions...
3goku 4 months ago
@GloriousJapanForever
By the end of this debate you'll have to redo your top 4 list of "This territorial dispute between Japan and South Korea over Takeshima(Dokdo) is quite simple.". We've already disproven #4 and as soon as you concede my first question, you'll have to get rid of #3 as well.
3goku 4 months ago
@3goku
>We've already disproven #4 and as soon as you concede my first question,
When and how?
GloriousJapanForever 4 months ago
@GloriousJapanForever
#4 "..."Rusk documents", they ignored this international determination..."
Rusk documents, confidential notes never shared with Japan nor the Allies, and you call it "international determination". Great way of amplifying a useless note.
3goku 4 months ago
@3goku
So what? The US denied the Korean gov's requirement. Even if it is not regarded as the "International determination", the US, core country of the Allies, explicitly denied the Dokdo is Korean territory. Do the other countries of the Allies disallow the Rusk document?
a414g 4 months ago
@a414g said "Do the other countries of the Allies disallow the Rusk documents?"
Besides Korea and Japan the other countries could give a rats ass about this issue.
3goku 4 months ago
Comment removed
a414g 4 months ago
@a414g
Oh give it up you moron. Come back with better arguments.
3goku 4 months ago
@3goku
Whether Rusk document was confidential or not, Dokdo was not added to the list of the islands which should be renounced by Japan in the San Francisco Peace Treaty and 49 countries singed the treaty.
GloriousJapanForever 4 months ago
@3goku
If America was not the representative of the Allies, why did South Korea send the request to the U.S. government first of all?
GloriousJapanForever 4 months ago
@3goku
If the San Francisco Peace Treaty didn't EXPLICITLY state that Takeshima belongs to Japan, why did South Korea demand that Dokdo should be added to the list?
GloriousJapanForever 4 months ago
@3goku
btw, here is another proof.
watch?v=H91QN6ho8jU
GloriousJapanForever 4 months ago
@GloriousJapanForever
Why are you showing me LINKS!!! DEBATE!!! And ANSWER THE INITIAL QUESTION. WHY ARE YOU AVOIDING IT!
3goku 4 months ago
@3goku
To see is to believe.
GloriousJapanForever 4 months ago
@3goku
In Japan, even little children know that they can't own things just by ranting "this is mine."
GloriousJapanForever 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Korean government knows that they would lose if this territorial issue is brought to ICJ. Korean government needed to produce anti-Japanese policy and education to make ordinary Koreans to look away from all kind of their domestic problems and criticism toward the government. Korean national identity is only supported by fabricating their own history and anti-Japanese policy and education. Philosophy of aristocrat "Yangban" and Confucianism have poisoned the ruling class of Korea.
kevin126975 4 months ago