Korean people insisted on the legitimacy owned by replacing different islands in Korea with Takeshima (Korea assertion: Dokdo)
Korean people insisted on the legitimacy owned by replacing different islands in Korea with Takeshima (Korea assertion: Dokdo)
By replacing “a Korean island on a map different from the real Takeshima” as Japanese territory Takeshima (Korea assertion: Dokdo), the Korean people claimed the legitimacy of ownership of Takeshima.
It is obvious if you actually see the island listed on the map of their evidence. The island is completely different in shape from Takeshima. At the same position in the Korean territory on the other maps there are islands of the same shape shown as evidence. On the contrary, when accepting their claim, the Korean island which is larger than this Takeshima disappears from the map.
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.5001159,130.883818,23266m/data=!3m1!1e3
In general, Takeshima is not posted on a map of the scale like this map.
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.2431976,131.8674317,2993m/data=!3m1!1e3
For further reference, “pine, bamboo, plum” is an auspicious tree in Japan. There are many islands with these names. There are many islands have the same name in many islands.
Their views on the Senkaku Islands also show the Shanghai curved entrance islands, considering the islands that are markers of the Shanghai route.
https://www.google.com/maps/@30.3650701,122.011314,138486m/data=!3m1!1e3
In time series, the possession of the Senkaku Islands in Japan is based on the Cabinet decision of 1895 and confirmation work to each country at that time. The map of 1802 as evidence that the Korean people showed ignores the circumstances of this period and the fact of confirmation work to each country.
Their intention to involve China in the battle with common enemies is clear, with the aim of favoring their new curved allegations.
In both cases, the validity of “claiming after the time when the existence of the undersea resources became known”, I believe that Japan’s legitimacy may be recognized if consideration is given to the facts and ethics that were later claimed.
If you are a person who took a science education and confirmed evidence on your own, it is obvious that the arguments of Korean people are dangerous this time too. Believing in their argument will be a matter of science ethics.
If you read this article, it is desirable to discuss the contents with yourself and acquaintances, including the legitimacy of this article. Such activities produce a future citizen who can think based on science.
