Dokdo-korea

jinzouningen, on August 24, 2007, said:

This island name is Takeshima. It is unlawfully occupied by Korean people.

djeepy, on November 9, 2007, said:

The island name is Dokdo but before world war II, the name was Takeshima. She has been dscover by french marines in XVIII Century.

sisonori999, on December 19, 2007, said:

鬱陵島Ullung（旧日本名：竹島 old Japanese name Takeshima）　=　干山島

現・竹島（now Takeshima /Korean domestic name Dok-do)＝旧日本名：松島 old Japanese neme Matsushima.

Japanese used this island for catching fish or shell and sea lion. and going to Ullung-do via this island.

r u understan??

Dean Rusk Usando is JUKDO, on December 19, 2007, said:

There are another interesting map　Garally about Liancourt Rocks issues. Korean has no map about Liancourt Rocks.Korea only have Ulleungdo and JUKDo and Gwaneumdo. Compare by yourself , Map of Usando! http://outdoor.geocities.jp/yabutarou01/5.html

http://www16.tok2.com/home/otakeshimaoxdokdox/UllunegoMapsDiscography/DetailMapoUlleungdoJUKDO.htm

Korean map said that Big Usando大于島 is JUKDO竹嶼（not liancourt Rocks),Small Usando小于島 is Gwanumdo観音島(Gwaneumdo is nearby Seokdo area, called SoKoTo鼠項島-Which are quite similar with SOKDO as well)

Brainwashed Korean repeatedly cite "Usando is Liancourt Rocks(Takeshima/Dokdo)

But,those Korean old map confirms Usando is not Liancourt Rocks.

What a childish and idiot claim by Korean on Liancourt Rocks! Actually Korean have no record of actual control on Liancourt Rocks before 1952 ,Military exercize invasion by Syung-man Rhee.

Liancourt Rocks is territory of Japan by treaty of Peace with Japan. It means Liancourt Rocks(Takeshima/Dokdo) is no Korean territory.　

wgryim, on December 21, 2007, said:

A Japaness wrote an idiot insistence as like :

Korean have no record of actual control on Liancourt Rocks before 1952 ,Military exercize invasion by Syung-man Rhee.

The two, Korea and Japan have many ancient documents, and both parties all try to analyze the words for their shakes. So that so many of them have some confusions.

But among them, there is no Korean record that Liancourt Rocks were in Japaness territory, and there are Japaness record that Liancourt Rocks were Korean territory, as like Daijokan order, of not to intrude near Liancourt Rocks territory of Chosen(former Korean dynasty), in 1877 with subsidial map which definitely shows the location of dokdo.

Same with the maps :

There is no Korean maps which described the Liancourt Rocks as Japaness territory. But, there is maps which describe Liancourt rocks as Korean territory.

http://www.idokdo.or.kr/jpn/html/dataroom_text_map08.html http://www.dokdocorea.com/map.htm -> Map7

Map in idokdo.or.kr shows more definetely, but in renewal, the map published by Japaness navy in 1876. It definitely decribe the shape of Liancourt Rocks in map of East seashoer of Korea.

If you want to insist,

Show me any record published in Korea that admitted the ownership of Japaness.

or

Show all the Japaness record above (Daijokan order and maps) are distorted.

If you can think logically, you may know that maps in confusion have no meaning.

sisonori999, on December 25, 2007, said:

korean says "we have many evidence." but conversely, those evidence shows that Takeshima is a Japanese island. Learn a Chinese character! u'll notice ur mistake.

⊂ニニニ（＾ω＾）ニ竹島ニ（＾ω＾）ニニニニ⊃ﾌﾞｰﾝ 現竹島は日本領土、旧竹島は鬱稜島

⊂ニニニ（ ＾ω＾）ニニ（ ＾ω＾）ニニニニ⊃ﾌﾞｰﾝ

⊂ニニニ（＾ω＾ ）ニニ（＾ω＾ ）ニニニニ⊃ﾌﾞｰﾝ

⊂ニニニ（＾ω＾ ）ニ（＾ω＾）ニ（ ＾ω＾）ニニニニ⊃ﾌﾞｰﾝ

korean confu these island,and korean CANNOT chinese character....despite old korean map written in a Chinaese charakter!!（kanji）

sisonori999, on December 25, 2007, said:

AD:1899,The domain of the "large Korea geographical book" (a textbook of the geography of the large Korea empire) large Korea empire is 42 degrees 25 minutes for lat. 33 degrees N 15 minutes. Long. 124 degrees E 30 minutes or more 130 degrees 35 minutes. u know AD1899 is before six years of 乙巳保護条約, four years of the "Shimonoseki Treaty" later. In other words it is a textbook of the time when Korea completely became independent. It is the textbook which a Korean wrote for a Korean. Furthermore, the same thing is written "even to large Korea Chinatown Area magazine" in 1907. Merger and Japan-Korea in 1910! After a merger period of 35 years, I become independent in 1945. However….

1947 "Korea common sense question and answer" In the Korean domain, I say 130 degrees 56 minutes 23 seconds for long. 124 degrees E 11 minutes or more! Takeshima (Tok-do) is long. 131 degrees E 52 minutes. ←Here serious matter! It is written that "the Korean east island is Chukdo of long. 130 degrees E 56 minutes 23 seconds"! The small island where there is Chukdo in the east of 鬱陵島.

I write Chukdo as "Takeshima" in a kanji. I am unrelated to Japanese Takeshima (Tok-do).

jaewoo.shin, on December 27, 2007, said:

Japaness this island isdokdo and not takesima

sisonori999, on December 27, 2007, said:

u say ,[dokdo] is USANDO IS JUKDO.

⊂ニニニ（＾ω＾）ニ竹島ニ（＾ω＾）ニニニニ⊃ﾌﾞｰﾝ 現竹島は日本領土、旧竹島は鬱稜島

Your OWN old map says [now-Takeshima] is NOT a Korean territory. Don't you get it? Oh, that's right. You morons CAN'T read and understand Chinese characters anymore!

wgryim, on December 28, 2007, said:

If anybody who would regard 大韓地誌 as Korean document which described the Japaness ownership of Liancourt Rocks, (s)he must look into the document or related documents more seriously.

Or read carefully the belows,

Before we get into the main, I would say that "There are so many documents those did not consider Liancourt Rocks in both sides. There are Japaness documents which show the ownership of Korea, but no Korean document which shows the ownership of Japan."

• 大韓地誌 did not described that "Liancourt Rocks is belonged to Japan". (Even it decribe that "Liancourt Rocks is Korean Territory")

At the epilogue(跋文), the writer Hyun Chae(玄采) wrotes: 余所編 地誌本諸日人所記參諸輿地勝覽 (I refered to some Japaness contents and 輿地勝覽), so what he did refer to?

The numbers of latitude and longitude are exactly same as those in 朝鮮水路誌(1894, published by Japaness Navy). It looked that the writer Hyun Chae might refered to 朝鮮水路誌.

Hyun Chae refered to 朝鮮水路誌 of Japaness Navy, but Japaness Navy included Liancourt Rocks in the documents(寰瀛水路誌1883, 朝鮮沿岸 簡易水路誌1894-1945,...) they published as Korean part with the name of リアンコ－ルト列岩 (Liancourt Rocks).

Let's look at more Japaness document at that time.

• 新撰朝鮮地理誌,1894.10, 太田才次 編, 博文館 : same longitude and latitude written. In this book it described the islands of Kangwon-do as 其他草島, 城島, 柹, 竹島, 鬱陵島, 于山島※ハ共ニ東海ノ中ニ散布セル諸島ナリ at page 186.

• 韓海通漁指針, 1903, 葛生修亮 : same longitude and latitude written. It described Liancourt Rocks in Chapter for Kangwondo, Korea((四)江原島 鬱陵島(ヤンコ)) as ヤンコ島 鬱陵島より東南の方約三十里、我が隱岐國を西北に距ること殆んど同里數の海中に於て、無人の一島あり、晴天の際鬱陵島山峯の高所より之れを望すを得べし、韓人及び本邦漁人は之れをヤンコも呼び、(Anko island < Liancoutr Rocks > : located 30 oriental miles(12km) south-easten from Ulleung island, similar distance from Oki, Japan. I clear weather it can be seen at the mountain in Ulleung island. Japaness fisher and Korean calls it as Yanko)

• 最新 韓國實業持針, 1904, 岩永重華 : same longitude and latitude written. Liancourt Rocks is described in the contents describing kangwondo, Korea.

• 韓國新地理, Sep 1905, 田淵, 最新 朝鮮地誌, 1912 日韓書房編輯部, 日韓書房....

With the documents, it can be evident that at that time so many document that regarded Liancourt Rocks as Korean territory wrote the wrong numbers of latitude and longitude.

More over that, the later version of the textbook(大韓新地志, 1907, 張志淵, 微文館) it describe Usan island as subsidial island of Ulleung island with describing the direction as south-eastern.

If anyone insist ownership of Japan. (s)he must answer to my queries.

• Show any Korean record that describe Liancourt Rocks as Japaness territory.

Don't try to confuse the debate with obscure data.

sisonori999, on January 8, 2008, said:

Brainwashed Korean repeatedly cite "Usando is Liancourt Rocks(Takeshima/Dokdo)

But,those Korean old map confirms Usando is not Liancourt Rocks. ⊂ニニ（＾ω＾）ニ⊃ﾌﾞｰﾝ　頑張れ　竹島！

wgryim, on January 9, 2008, said:

Right, so many map give us confusion. But the subsidial map of Daijokan order 1877 shows the exact location of "two other island(外二島)".

Don't try to kidding.

Why do you stick to obscure documents. I did not insist with those confused documents. Do you want to be confused?

sisonori999, on January 12, 2008, said:

To wgryim u said "Do you want to be confused?"

NO! I just say the truth,and i dont dislike Koreans. wrong is wrong.

wgryim, on January 14, 2008, said:

You make me repeat same words.

Briefly speacking :

There are so many ancient documents those can be translated in their shake.

But something evident is that :

1) There are many Japaness official and private documents those described Dokdo as territory of Chosun.

• in 1877, Japaness Daijokan published order that said Takeshima and another island is territory of Chosun. Did it mentioned Ulleungdo? No, It mentioned them as "竹島外一島". You said that Takeshima in old document is Ulleungdo. So what is "another island"?

  You can find the location of "another island" in 磯竹島略圖, also published with Daijokan order. The map was published to specify the exact location of "竹島外一島". How could you insist that Dokdo was not included in "竹島外一島"?

  Check at the site : http://blog.naver.com/cms1530?Redirect=Log&logNo=10008520591

• In 1876, Japaness Navy published Korean map, with describing exact shape of Dokdo.

  Check at the site : http://www.dokdocorea.com/map.htm

• So many of Japaness geographical book introduced Dokdo as part of Kangwondo Chosun.

  -- 新撰朝鮮地理誌,1894.10, 太田才次 編, 博文館 -- 韓海通漁指針, 1903, 葛生修亮 -- 最新 韓國實業持針, 1904, 岩永重華 -- 韓國新地理, 1905.09, 田淵, -- 最新 朝鮮地誌, 1912 日韓書房編輯部, 日韓書房 ....

2) There is no Korean document that describe Dokdo as territory of Japan.

Can 1 & 2 be understood as evidences?

sisonori999, on January 19, 2008, said:

daijokan order, in 1877 now-TAKESHIMA/LiancourtRocks/Dokdo was not included in "竹島外一島/Ulleungdo+1island" There is NOT at all the possibility(=0%) that is now-Takeshima. It is said Cyukdo, Gwaneumdo. However, This is very highly likely to be the Argo notebook Island. this is nonexistent. *in those days, Country of any place had not a correct map. Wrong maps such as "L'Empire du Japon" were used, and the phantom island appeared in various maps.

If this [Another island] points at now-Takeshima, It does not become such a Japanese expression. ex:　Takeshima and Matsushima, or from Matsushima to Takesima. 「外」means [outside] , [another] , [and =(MAIN + annex ; accompanying)]. and this expression lets us image circumference immediately. It is not expression to use in the island that was 92km away from　old-TAKESHIMA/Ulleungdo.

朝鮮水路誌　in 1894 http://www.geocities.jp/tanaka_kunitaka/takeshima/hydrograph1894/ There is a description to show that eastlimit of Korea territory is Ulleungdo.

大韓全図 in 1899 大韓帝国の東西は「東経124度35分から東経130度35分」としている。竹島はその行政区の外、131度55分に在る。またこの本には大韓全図という付属図がついているが、韓国はこの図に書かれてある于山島こそ現在の獨島であるとしている。しかし緯度や経度を見れば、この于山島はチュクドであることが分かる。

韓海通漁指針 in 1903 this document works in favor of Japan. Korea is said to have been it in "Dok-do" from circumstances of the pronunciation later by "Sokdo" in 41st Imperial ordinance AD 1900, but a Korean called LiancourtRocks, yanko/ryanko island in around 1902.

朝鮮全岸 in 1896 is a hydrographic chart, irrelevant to the territorial rights. other maps ,is too.

Korea must not confuse an administrative map with a map in the fishery.

wgryim, on January 21, 2008, said:

韓海通漁指針 in 1903 wrote as :

In chapter 3(沿海地理) - (四)江原島 鬱陵島(ヤンコ) page 123-124:

ヤンコ島 鬱陵島より東南の方約三十里、我が隱岐國を西北に距ること殆んど同里數の海中に於て、無人の一島あり、晴天の際鬱陵島山峯の高所より之れを望すを得べし、韓人及び本邦漁人は之れをヤンコも呼び、

It described the Dokdo, as part of Kangwon-do Chosun(Korea).

How could you say the 0%?

You already saw the map,(磯竹島略圖). So definitely the map describes the locations of two islands. Ulleungdo(竹島) and another island(Liancourt Rocks, as you call Matsushima).

At the map, how could you think the "another island" is the small island near Ulleungdo(you call it as old takeshimna). If so, why did they described the Dokdo(Matsushima) in the same map?

If you say "to specified the location of Ulleung island"... I would answer as like that "Only idiot would use the small island to specified the location of Big Island."

Another island==Jukdo or Gwaneumdo? or a ghost island?? So funny! The islands of Jukdo and Gwaneumdo, the two islands very close to Ulleung island, with similar size. Is there any time when anybody has interest in two islands? Did the two small islands have so important meaning to Daijokan, or Shimane? So that Did Daijokan add the three characters of 外一島?

Another possibility of Argonote island also makes us laugh at your level of imagination. In the official documents in which Daijokan treated the national border, can non-existent island be specified? You too under-estimate the level of Meiji government.

With your imagination, how could you tell the 0% possibility? If you really think so, we must suspect your brain, more than your conscience.

The Daijokan order was published for the request of 內務省 in 1876. 內務省 subjected the request after receiving the request of Shimane. At that time Shimane included some additional paper which described the islands in matter. At the paper, it wrote that "And then there is another island(一島), called as 松島(Matsushima). Surrounding is about 30町, located in the line to Ulleung island. 80 eastern miles from Oki....".

Are you really don't know about it? or hide it? I would like to believe that Japaness is clever and conscious. Please don't cut off my hope.

sisonori999, on February 14, 2008, said:

Korea did not have a map of correct, detailed Takeshima till the 20th century began.

大韓全図 in 1899 大韓帝国の東西は「東経124度35分から東経130度35分」としている。竹島はその行政区の外、131度55分に在る。またこの本には大韓全図という付属図がついているが、韓国はこの図に書かれてある于山島こそ現在の獨島であるとしている。しかし緯度や経度を見れば、この于山島はチュクドであることが分かる。

韓海通漁指針 in 1903 むしろこの資料は日本にとって有利に働いている。 韓国は1900年に出した勅令第41に「石島」が、後に発音の都合から「独島」になったと言っているが、 1902年前後には韓国人もヤンコ島と言っているとの記述があるからである。 Rather this document works in favor of Japan. Korea is said to have been it in "Dok-do" from circumstances of the pronunciation later by "Sokdo" in 41st Imperial ordinance AD 1900, but a Korean called LiancourtRocks, yanko/ryanko island in around 1902.

sisonori999, on February 19, 2008, said:

yes!Takeshima is our Japanese territory!

Usando is Cyukudo,Soekdo is Kwannaumdo!

Japanese territory Takeshima is guaranteedby Rusk note of 1951 & report of Van Fleet mission to the Far East and other old evidence!!!

wgryim, on February 19, 2008, said:

Hey, sisonori.

As you go on same insist, without answering to my request, I have no choice to think deeply about the ability of your brain.

Please give me an answer for Daijokan order and 磯竹島略圖.

I already explained fully about 大韓全図, and you must read it before in several pictures. You looked have no ability to make discussion. Why do you keep on making confusions in discussion. Is it Japaness culture?

To other Japaness : Do you see that sisonori is in good condition? Is the status or the brain ability general in Japan? I hope not.

sisonori999, on February 21, 2008, said:

ヴァン・フリート特命報告書　1954年8月15日 report of Van Fleet mission to the Far East 朝鮮戦争を指揮したヴァン・フリートがアイゼンハワー第34代米大統領の特命大使として韓国、日本、台湾、フィリピンを訪問し作成した報告書。 米国政府公式見解として以下の点が確認される。 ●一方的な領海宣言（李承晩ライン）は違法である。 ●米国政府はサンフランシスコ講和条約において竹島は日本領土であると結論している。 ●この領土問題は国際司法裁判所を通じて解決されることが望まれる。

wgryim, on February 21, 2008, said:

Who's Van Fleet? Was he a judge? He was just a mission of US. A Mission of US reported to US President. It does not have any effectiveness. It was just a internal document, and that's all. Nothing else.

Whether Dokdo was included in Ulleungdo or Shimane, at that time was most important in applying Treaty of Peace.

So that the effectiveness of inclusion of Dokdo into Shimane is very important.

So that we now discuss about Daijokan order. Can you understand? (Regarding your ability of brain, your understanding cannot be guaranteed.)

Please answer for 磯竹島略圖 and Daijokan order.

sisonori999, on February 22, 2008, said:

竹島の日！！！

You don't know Van Fleet,

It's mean you are brain washed at all.

"As regards the islands of Dokdo, otherwise known as Takeshima or Liancourt Rocks never treated as part of Korea and, since about 1905, has been under the jurisdiction of the Oki Islands Branch Office of Shimane Prefecture of Japan. The Island does not appear ever before to have been claimed by Korea."

wgryim, on February 24, 2008, said:

Van Fleet just a mission of US even did not know the fact that I have told you. Now you know that Korea have owned the island in 1800's as Daijokan order wrote. How could you give effectiveness to the document that was not written based on fact?

sisonori999, on February 26, 2008, said:

Is the Korean claim 1800's? I think Korea insist that "since 512"...ok!

When war is over, U.S or other victorious nation checked about Japanese peculiar territory.

As a result, Takeshima　was proved that it was Japan territory.

wgryim, on February 28, 2008, said:

You may feel hard to understand what I want to tell you.

In the document of Shimane inclusion, they said "They include the island as their territory for that the island have never been possessed by any country".

To prove the condition is wrong we need to suggest 1 firm evidence. We have possessed Dokdo since 512, right. But you continuously make a different insist for that. You make a confusion in the matter of "since 512".

Ok,

If so, we don't need to insist and stick on the matter of "since 512". We have another firm evedence of Dajyokan order, which was definitely described that Dokdo was governed by Korea. More over that the document was published by Japaness government.

Can you understand it?

After the War, only US want to put the island in Japaness side, but the others want returning back the island to Korea.

So that the Treaty of Peace left it in so obscure expression.

In any way if we check the expression in Treaty of Peace, The island of Dokdo must be returned.

The inclusion of Shimane is not a valid one, as I wrote in this comment. Dokdo have been being a part of Ulleungdo, Korea. Dokdo have never been part of Shimane.

Do you know even Shimane started to insist the ownership, just few year ago. Did they forget that they have Takeshima in their territory? How could they?

Hey, even you understand?

sisonori999, on February 29, 2008, said:

We have another firm evedence of Dajyokan order, = Korea is able to the faultfinding.

After the War, only US... = No,Aus or other country comfirm that Takeshima is Japan territory.

returning back the island to Korea.? = Ha!?! Don't bull shit! Return? Takeshima is Japanese territory before annex! and more, Korea made the IMPUDENT demand "We want Takeshima and Tsushima..." U.S.A., and it was declined.

I know shimane action, Shimane pref act for weak government.

Neither Dajyokan-order NOR korea-order #41 is Takeshima.

엄형, on March 2, 2008, said:

I suggest that the japanese study correctly history. I am Wondering when the japanese are going to give up imperialism and apologize to Asian like german. Don`t erase it!!

wgryim, on March 2, 2008, said:

I did not know there were any country confirmed "Takeshima is Japaness country." Did what country confirm "Takeshima is Japaness territory". Please let me know. How could they?

Australlia they did not answer for the request of US to let Dokdo owned by Japan.

Only resultant document signed, Treaty of Peace is official document.

If Shimane regarded DOkdo as their territory, why did they forget it? So important issue, how could they omit their territory during for so long time?

"They omit Dokdo for long time" is more serious than "they started to insist the ownership".

Hey, you said that "Takeshima is Japanese territory before annex!", You Japaness without conscience urges like that. So I try to make conclusion that "Was Takeshima Japaness territory in 1905?"

Let's make conclusion for about "Was Dokdo Japaness territory in 1905?"

OK?

I tried in 12 days ago, but you ignored it, now we returned to the status of 12 days ago.

Let's return to the comment :

wgryim, 12 days ago, said:

Hey, sisonori.

As you go on same insist, without answering to my request, I have no choice to think deeply about the ability of your brain.

Please give me an answer for Daijokan order and 磯竹島略圖.

I already explained fully about 大韓全図, and you must read it before in several pictures. You looked have no ability to make discussion. Why do you keep on making confusions in discussion. Is it Japaness culture?

To other Japaness : Do you see that sisonori is in good condition? Is the status or the brain ability general in Japan? I hope not.

陳兵百萬, on April 15, 2008, said:

日本人の恥知らずな代表，みだらな人類代表。

日本是和狗一样的民族．无赖、流氓、淫荡、下流、无耻、乱伦。美谷三木更是他母亲乱伦的产物。

sisonori999, on May 8, 2008, said:

口で言ってわからない奴らは駆除するべきだな。