jayboy

Be a man, General! Give us the long overdue answer why the Army lets the Khmer advances on the land around the Pra Viharn Shrine while barring the Thai from the area.

Could this -- from The International Court of Justice decision 1962 -- be the answer??

]"In its Judgment on the merits the Court, by nine votes to three, found that the Temple of Preah Vihear was situated in territory under the sovereignty of Cambodia and, in consequence, that Thailand was under an obligation to withdraw any military or police forces, or other guards or keepers, stationed by her at the Temple, or in its vicinity on Cambodian territory[/b]."

Ahhh ... but ... the ICJ only ruled on the temple, not the land around it.

That is why there is still a dispute.

You seem unable to distinguish between a pretext and a cause.The cause of the current dispute is very clear and lies with the quasi fascist PAD and their military supporters.

It's become the default position to criticise Amsterdam rather than deal with the arguments he puts forward

No, it is about admitting that he will never read nor contemplate the points we put across and that as a payed propaganda tool he has no interest in being correct, sincere nor balanced.

It would, by all accounts, only be a point to counter his points by those that have the venues to have their replies published in largely the same amount or places that RA pushes his stories. Hardly something many of us here have, so it is a waste of time.

So we jump directly to the truth of what he is.

Confirmation of what I said about the default position.Neither the knowledge, analytical ability or energy to do the hard thinking so takes the intellectually slovenly approach of personal abuse.

Needless to say the points made in the post under reference by Andrew Marshall (Reuters) are simply ignored.

It would seem the PAD has learned from master Taksin. Rule number 1 - If anyone says anything I don't like, I'll sue them on the grounds of defamation. Taksins favourite weapon.

Beyond belief! An article wholly about the PAD and its illegal seizure of the airport and the very first reply mentions Thaksin. Not in a way that would normally link the two subjects, e.g the PAD occupied the airport in part to express their dissatisfaction with the Thaksin Government, oh no, any excuse to mention Thaksin will do. In the words of many a girlfriend to their affronted partner;

"Just leave it, He's not worth it"

I fully expect someone to pop up with a Jpeg any minute.

There's a lot of contention for the Sriracha John Memorial Prize where the honour goes to the person who introduces the subject of Thaksin into an entirely unrelated subject.I agree you have identified a promising candidate.

It's a shame that you gave up after reading the bs part - to be expected but worth while trying again from where he get's down to some to some suggestions for reforms i.e Paragraphs 16 -31. From there on he wanders off again in rhetoric but the paragraphs I have mentioned provide food for thought, at least to those with an open mind (and I'm not excluding you from this Rubl - see I got your "name" right at last )

It's become the default position to criticise Amsterdam rather than deal with the arguments he puts forward.To do so of course would mean abandoning an intellectually slovenly position and start tackling some hard questions.I'm the first to admit that Amsterdam is hardly an attractive personality and that the Thaksin connection weakens his credibility.But that's not enough to dismiss all aspects of his case.There are still some really important outstanding questions on the deaths which took place in Bangkok last year.The military has rejected accountability as it always does.None of the inquiries have lead anywhere.The Government's attitude has been disgraceful,assuming that there is no price to pay.They may have miscalculated.

A respected journalist summarises the position in this Reuters blog

http://blogs.reuters.com/andrew-marshall/2011/02/13/reclaiming-the-truth-in-thailand/

It's just the way it has been historically (see my point above). Just from their name ("The Royal Thai Army") you get an idea of who they are protecting foremost.

There is a huge difference between what is professed and the reality.The true purpose of the Thai army, other than to protect the country against foreign invasion, is to make money for its senior officer corps.

Disagree.

That is their sideline,

because they have the power to use, they make money with it. Simple as that, they can so they do. Same for ANY Thai, it is the national midset in a kow tow beset or besotted society. To say 'the purpose of the army' is to make profits for the leaders of the moment, ignores that rest of the army as a whole.

I don't necessarily disagree with this.It depends on the way one looks at it and your concise view is perfectly valid though I am more generous than you in my perception of Thais as a whole.The kowtow factor you mention is vanishing fast, and that is a central theme in the current political instability.Fact remains however that the senior officer corps (Thailand's army is grotesquely over generalled) is consumed by making money on the side.The rhetoric about serving the monarchy, the flag and the country is in many cases a fig leaf to cover greed and corruption.There are of course some first class officers but they tend to have a Serpico experience.

It's just the way it has been historically (see my point above). Just from their name ("The Royal Thai Army") you get an idea of who they are protecting foremost.

There is a huge difference between what is professed and the reality.The true purpose of the Thai army, other than to protect the country against foreign invasion, is to make money for its senior officer corps.

It is not about a better fairer Thailand, it is about a 'GIVE ME, GIVE ME'-attitude. It is the same all over the world, perhaps even more so in leftist Europe, where people feel entitled to get money from others that work hard.

Many will have a sharply different view from yourself as to where the GIVE ME GIVE ME attitude can be found in Thailand.

Not really, unless someone is dimwitted.

Perhaps you are talking about people trying to do everything to keep what they make and/or not pay people what might be a fair market-price, in part due to market-collisions or monopoly/oligopoly positions? Yes, there are many examples.

Well that's what I believe as do many of my friends, and whatever else may be said about us we are not dimwitted.Your second sentence frankly doesn't make much sense and I'm a Cambridge economics graduate.

It is not about a better fairer Thailand, it is about a 'GIVE ME, GIVE ME'-attitude. It is the same all over the world, perhaps even more so in leftist Europe, where people feel entitled to get money from others that work hard.

Many will have a sharply different view from yourself as to where the GIVE ME GIVE ME attitude can be found in Thailand.

Sorry but not convinced. The "stipend" offered was already apparently cause for celebration from one account here, which gives some idea of its significance.

Notice that the Arab revolutions are happening within quick succession of each other - Tunisia, Egypt, apparently now Yemen is on the edge. If anti-govt feeling is naturally so strong why can't it happen here today or tomorrow? Why wait? Simple - because the momentum for one to happen naturally isn't there and can only be stimulated.

I'm not sure what you're not convinced of.Are you saying without the stipend the Red movement would be insignificant?

The Arab situation is rather different.In Egypt for example there seems to be a virtual unanimity of purpose.In Thailand the country is much more bitterly divided.

Some of the Redshirts were having a party, down the street and round the corner, after the rally last night. My wife stopped to chat with them & they told her that they were celebrating because they had been paid 500b each to attend. In the past they had just earned 300b each, but no-one was interested in going out for that price anymore.

There was some debate on Twitter last night with some of the more prominent, Thai-savy "farang" users insisting that the red shirts they had spoken to had gone completely on their own free will - going as far to say that this year things were "different".

But I also recognise yourself as a long-term TV user telling us what other Thai people have told me about every other red shirt rally - that people have indeed been salaried for their attendance.

Frankly I had my doubts the trend would be bucked this year, and it looks as if that's the case.

Many Bangkok based middle class Thais maintain the Reds only attend rallies because they are paid to do so.The same people often tend to say rural voters vote (except of course in the South since there they tend to vote the "right way) as they are instructed and paid.I have no doubt that payments are made.This is Thailand after all.

However to deny that among the millions of Red Shirt supporters there isn't genuine passion and desire for a better fairer Thailand is an absurd position to take.

Big question is however how many would turn up if no payment was made...? Personally feel some of Sombat's "death aerobics" activities several months back gave us a clue; not many.

I'm not sure that's the big question at all.Looking at the broader context Thailand's resources have been ridiculously slewed to the urban middle class for decades - in education, health, infrastructure etc etc.The middle class has already been "bribed" on a scale that makes a few hundred Baht payment to an Isaan Red quite insignificant.The middle class openly cheat on their taxes and resent expenditure on the less fortunate.That's partly what the Red struggle is all about and explains the Democrat led Government's (I think) honourable and sensible efforts to deal with this injustice (and of course to use Thaksin's own weaponry against him).

I should think the Red core consists of quite a few tens of thousand particularly when one remembers from last year the surprising support from Bangkok based working class and lower middle class communities.On the other hand the numbers game can be very misleading.For example the recent yellow demonstrations have struggled to make up a crowd.It would be naive to extrapolate from this that the middle class support for PAD ideology has been seriously dented.

Some of the Redshirts were having a party, down the street and round the corner, after the rally last night. My wife stopped to chat with them & they told her that they were celebrating because they had been paid 500b each to attend. In the past they had just earned 300b each, but no-one was interested in going out for that price anymore.

There was some debate on Twitter last night with some of the more prominent, Thai-savy "farang" users insisting that the red shirts they had spoken to had gone completely on their own free will - going as far to say that this year things were "different".

But I also recognise yourself as a long-term TV user telling us what other Thai people have told me about every other red shirt rally - that people have indeed been salaried for their attendance.

Frankly I had my doubts the trend would be bucked this year, and it looks as if that's the case.

Many Bangkok based middle class Thais maintain the Reds only attend rallies because they are paid to do so.The same people often tend to say rural voters vote (except of course in the South since there they tend to vote the "right way) as they are instructed and paid.I have no doubt that payments are made.This is Thailand after all.

However to deny that among the millions of Red Shirt supporters there isn't genuine passion and desire for a better fairer Thailand is an absurd position to take.

Exactly what you would expect from Thailand. It seems they just don't need anyone's help or advice. Lets hope they don't have to come cap in hand later and lose face over it.

jb1

I am afraid that the wrong headedness and arrogance of the Thai Government will mean paying a price - though I don't think it will get to the UNSC, even granting that the silly Cambodians have risen to the bait predictably.

A quote from another forum:

"It is the Thai Government’s contempt for international law that is bringing it into disrepute amongst civilised countries. It doesn’t matter that the attacks on Cambodia are unlikely to have been ordered by any Thai Government, but are the work of an out-of-control army faction. That the Thai Government has gone along with this criminal behaviour is what will count against it in the forum of the UN Security Council."

Just more evidence of the puerile and immature nature of the Thai establishment, trying and failing to manipulate nationalist fervour to serve its internal political purpose.

Sorry but that article doen not answer the question what Cambodia has to gain by refusing to talk.

In fact Cambodia hardly gets a mention.

It only makes assumptions that thailand is ruled by the military which is certainly debatable.

If you can't grasp the essentials from Crispin's article I doubt whether anyone else can explain it to you.Your final sentence seems very confused and suggests much of what Crispin has written has gone over your head.

I think Cambodia's unwillingness to discuss bilaterally - given the Thai context issues spelled out in Crispin's article - is very understandable.Equally Thailand's unwillingness to have any kind of independent third party investigation is par for the course, indeed is just the flipside of the Cambodian position.

If you prefer to live in a Pollyanna land where all Thais have the purest of motives, by all means do so.But don't expect a grown up dialogue.

What I cant understand is what Hun Sen and Cambodia think they can gain at this point by not talking.

They have got their international attention, he has shown he is a defender of the country and deserves to be re elected in the coming elections with a minimum of cheating, the boy has got his reason for promotion and will get his new ribbons on his chest.

From here on in it must be all downhill for him as the truth comes out, like shelling Thai villages, school, Wat, having troops in the temple, all the things that have been shown by photo video and indipendant report.

He can now avoid all this coming out by sitting down and talking.

Sitting down and talking it through like a good neighbour for the good of both countries would seem the thing to do.

The only thing he may think he can do now is as much damage to Thailand as possible.

But why should he want to do that? unless there is another hand (black hand, like a coal mine owner) behind it all that has an agenda and history of trying to damage Thailand.

Your interpretation is askew because you fail to appreciate the extent to which the Thais have manafactured this crisis.See the Shawn Crispin article I have posted on another thread this morning.

Then possibly you would like to answer the question of what Cambodia has to gain by refusing to talk.

And add to that what Thailand has to gain wanting to talk things through.

Suggest you read Crispin's article.

What I cant understand is what Hun Sen and Cambodia think they can gain at this point by not talking.

They have got their international attention, he has shown he is a defender of the country and deserves to be re elected in the coming elections with a minimum of cheating, the boy has got his reason for promotion and will get his new ribbons on his chest.

From here on in it must be all downhill for him as the truth comes out, like shelling Thai villages, school, Wat, having troops in the temple, all the things that have been shown by photo video and indipendant report.

He can now avoid all this coming out by sitting down and talking.

Sitting down and talking it through like a good neighbour for the good of both countries would seem the thing to do.

The only thing he may think he can do now is as much damage to Thailand as possible.

But why should he want to do that? unless there is another hand (black hand, like a coal mine owner) behind it all that has an agenda and history of trying to damage Thailand.

Your interpretation is askew because you fail to appreciate the extent to which the Thais have manafactured this crisis.See the Shawn Crispin article I have posted on another thread this morning.

I believe the emotive idea of linking PM-Abhisit with Hitler may previously have been used, by associates of another person who formerly used to advise the Cambodian government, hopefully he won't now be suing them for the customary Billion Baht for copyright-infringement on this idea ?

Congratulations on winning the Sriracha John memorial prize on bringing Thaksin into a thread where he has not the slightest relevance.

This article is so far the best analysis of the situation.

It is a good article but the best I have seen is Shawn Crispin's from the Asia Times which analyses the links between the PAD and the military, and their reasons for stirring up trouble.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/MB08Ae01.html

^ In the same way the Red Shirts used small children as human shields, the Cambodians were using the temple as a World Heritage shield.

A crazed attempt to link the Red Shirts to an issue they have nothing to do with.

However it is even curiouser.Is this person suggesting the Cambodians were occupying the temple (their temple by the way) to inhibit the Thais destroying it?

If not what is this person suggesting?

I don't really like doing this (because it's abused so often) but can you supply relevant links.Quite understand if you don't want to (I never do!)

However as previously noted if the temple is undamaged nobody will be more pleased than me.I don't have a political axe to grind here (because of my total contempt for the main players on both sides).

The temple is not "undamaged" but it is also not extensively damaged, as suggested by the Cambodians.

http://www.npr.org/t...oryId=133505696

Oh now it's not "undamaged", hmm.This report is clearly provisional but thanks for the link anyway.

Money quote

"They also saw areas where shrapnel chipped away at some of the sanctuary's ancient walls, but no signs of large structural damage. The U.N. cultural agency, UNESCO, says it plans to send a team to makes its own assessment of the damage."

Let's await the UNESCO report before closing this file.Oh, the Thais won 't allow them in....wonder why not.

^ I post credible reports and photos from reliable sources and challenge posts that originate from misreadings of media sources or just pure guesswork from people far removed.

You are welcome to post any news you deem fit, as well, if the news I post doesn't necessarily reflect your opinions.

Feel free to challenge the news I relay on to the forum.

Thank you.

No sorry that just isn't true.You accept blindly propaganda from Thai Government sponsored sources and dispute all other reports which differ from your political line.If necessary, and I have evidence available, you slander individual reporters or bloggers.

Do you mean "Thai Government sponsored sources" producing "blind propaganda" like Reuters, AFP, DPA, Xinhua, BBC, AP, etc. that I have used in posts? I've quoted well over two dozen different news sources over the course of my posts. Are they all under Abhisit's control?

What reports have I disputed that weren't for valid reasons?

What reporters from major news sources have I slandered?

As for bloggers, we can save that for another post as they are subject to attack from an entire roster of varied posters for a variety of reasons, as well you have quite enough questions to respond to with factual and specific quotes and "evidence", rather than your unsubstantiated claims.

.

No I am talking only about Thai Government sponsored sources.

Your "valid reasons" may not be sufficient, and in many cases simply reflect your political bias.

Your sensitivity on "major news sources" reporters and bloggers rather proves my point.I don't accept your distinctions and in any case in the modern media age all reports have the opportunity to make a contribution.

As I said I have evidence of your track record, though you might not like what else it reveals.

<snip>

In the case of the temple damage in dispute, I suggest we await detailed and independent findings.In the meantime I suggest, since we are not schoolchildren, you avoid scissor and pasting unrelated posts.

Their has already been independent reports saying that their is only minor damage from bullets.

That is one of the reasons for this discussion. The Cambodians are saying that there are no Cambodian troops in the temple and that their was major damage to it. Independent media (ie non-Thai) have reported otherwise.

I don't really like doing this (because it's abused so often) but can you supply relevant links.Quite understand if you don't want to (I never do!)

However as previously noted if the temple is undamaged nobody will be more pleased than me.I don't have a political axe to grind here (because of my total contempt for the main players on both sides).

^ I post credible reports and photos from reliable sources and challenge posts that originate from misreadings of media sources or just pure guesswork from people far removed.

You are welcome to post any news you deem fit, as well, if the news I post doesn't necessarily reflect your opinions.

Feel free to challenge the news I relay on to the forum.

Thank you.

.

No sorry that just isn't true.You accept blindly propaganda from Thai Government sponsored sources and dispute all other reports which differ from your political line.If necessary, and I have evidence available, you slander individual reporters or bloggers.

In the case of the temple damage in dispute, I suggest we await detailed and independent findings.In the meantime I suggest, since we are not schoolchildren, you avoid scissor and pasting unrelated posts.

I actually now concede my comment of being "demolished" by the ABC was excessive

and then in the next paragraph:

back pedalling hard.

So you can take two completely unrelated quotes and find that amusing.Well done, albeit Sriracha John did it better.

Or you can post endlessly about shells and shrapnel and bore on endlessly about press reports.Reality of course that the position isn't yet clear.

Or you can post something analytical and sensible about military/PAD (your homeboys) strategy in stirring up trouble on the borders.But of course that will never happen.

I can agree with all you said but the fact is Thais admit they bombed, ruined one side of temple. The reason they said was as Cambodians stationed troops in that wing from where they opened fire and i believe that.But it is out of the question now, Thais bombed temple or not. Statement is given by Chief Commander and it is published in Bangkok Post.

A review of all temple articles reported in the Bangkok Post since Feb. 1, 2011 failed to reveal any article as you describe.

Could you please provide the name of the "Chief Commander" or some other identifying information to help locate it?

Or if possible, just PM the link to me, please.

Thank you.

Thanks. I am sure your searching abilities are better than mine, but I couldn't find anything either.

It's not about my searching abilities, not at all.

It is simply because i had in my hands newspaper with that news. I bought it in Laos, Vientian. As i found it in my car this morning i am telling you details so you could search online edition of Bangkok Post(te newsspaper you can trust, as they said).

Here it is.

Bangkok Post, Tuesday, February 8, 2011. Cover page.

The news is with the blue background:" Army admits firing on ancient temple."

The name of Army spokesman who stated this is Sansern Kaewkamnerd. Rank Col.

As he is a spokesman, he did it in consultation with his boss, which would be normal in the Army any country so, this is more than relevant statement and it's for real.

Later, i have to travel now to Mukdahan province, i will post here all statement and comment why it is not possible to find it in online edition of Bangkok Post.

I hope this will help we see the reality much better.

With love for Thailand and Thais, we have right to tell what we think is wrong. And all of this is very wrong, in my opinion.

I'm afraid you won't be able to win on this.Those who fear the truth are quite happy to rely completely on the lies of the Thai Government's discredited propaganda machine, but call into question any independent assessment.My own position is rather different because sad though damage is, it's not actually the key issue.Let's hope in due course both sides can co-operate in repairing any damage done.

Oh so now you are admitting the Thais have been shelling the Cambodian temple.When you have finally decided what you think feel free to let those interested know.

Perhaps there is a PAD "line to take" which would be helpful to you.

Turning to a more serious analysis of the problem watch FM Korn being demolished in a devastating interview by the ABC's Zoe Gillard

http://www.abc.net.a.../10/3135739.htm

Demolished? Devastating? You really need to get out more. Let's see Hun Sen agree to an interview by any independent foreign network and then we'll talk of devastingly demolished. And as for your allegations of pro nationalist PAD posting, I've seen most of the anti red posters, including myself, come out and call them a bunch of loonies and denounce what they're doing. Some appear to be supporting Cambodia, some, again including myself, have looked at the evidence and conclude Cambodia is the aggressor. To anyone who thinks this situation suddenly came up out of nowhere because a bunch of weirdos with an agenda started camping out on a Bangkok bridge, I say look at the official government statements, not the rantings of the loonie nationalists on either side, made by both sides over the past few years. Unfortunately, neither your copy of Pasuk-Baker, your Latin dictionary, nor your book of Jorge Luis Borge quotes will help in this case. Although, I do profess to like the latter's "I believe that in time we will have reached the point where we will deserve to be free of government". I'll drink to that day.

Hun Sen couldn't provide such an interviews as he is a crude thuggish semi educated dictator.By contrast Korn is a polished polite and highly intelligent upper class gentleman.I actually now concede my comment of being "demolished" by the ABC was excessive but he was certainly put on the spot with some very penetrating questions and follow up questions.To his credit he appeared poised throughout and didn't lose his rag.This kind of interview never takes place with the Thai media.

I don't recall making allegations against PAD posters and don't propose to discuss this aspect further.We know why they are so quiet now seizing on immaterial detail (shrapnel or shells etc) or back pedalling hard.The truth is quite hard to bear for some.If you have somehow procured evidence that Cambodia is the aggressor (I have no idea) well done.Most serious news media are unclear on this issue although all are are agreed the trouble was formented by semi crazed nationalists.