jayboy

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.

I don't sleep under the start and stripes with my latest propaganda sheet, but I've been known to sing a rather strained version of the Star Spangled Banner. Would you like to hear it? Tough song to sing, as it spans over 2 octaves. Interesting note on Fort McHenry and Baltimore harbor where it was written (by Francis Scott Key, who was being held prisoner on a British ship at the time) - a bomb was found the next day, which had been fired by a British invading ship. The bomb had crashed through the fort's wall to rest on the floor of the armory - right alongside barrels of gunpowder. It was a dud. Imagine how history might have been altered if the fuse of that bomb had functioned.

How could it have been a British "invading ship" since the colonies at that time were territories of the British Crown?

Buchholz also knows that, according to the Washington Post, "heavily armed troops crouch in fortified bunkers on the grounds of an ancient temple"...

that Cambodia probably shouldn't use the temple as a shield and a place from which to fire their various weapons from if it is concerned about it being damaged.

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.au/news/video/2011/02/10/3135739.htm

That helps to clear up the earlier erroneous reports by Cambodia's Hun Sen in Post # 1 and Thaivisa's jayboy in Post # 36.

It doesn't clear anything up since we have seen no neutral report yet.However if the temple isn't damaged that's obviously good news.What your position is seems obscure since only a few posts ago you were chattering about damage done by small arms fire.Even the third party reference (the laughable Thai Asean News Network) to Reuters refers to slight damage.Let's all hope this interesting temple remains intact and the local villagers can return to their peaceful livelihoods, without more trouble stirring by the PAD fascists.

I can see why you're looking for some silver lining here.The PAD loving contingent have been exposed as dupes and no amount of bluster can change this.It's all rather complicated for some I agree.

Hmm, yes, I'm afraid it remains fact that the temple isn't "missing a wing" as Hun Sen said and it remains a fact that Cambodian troops are stationed within the temple with arms pointing at Thailand.

And it remains a fact that the report we have seen is not from a Cambodian nor a Thai - I think that's about as neutral as anyone can ask for! Would still like a few more accounts though, just as I'm sure you would.

It also remains a fact that the civilian death count at this stage is a couple on each side (still as yet hazy exactly how many).

So, the post that everyone is waiting for your clarification - this one:

I suppose the Thai military has played a helpful role in solving the "problem" by shelling the temple and severely damaging it.Give them enough time and they could destroy it completely as well as killing local villagers.

We're all allowed our slip-ups, jayboy, but please show some humility and admit that you couldn't have got it more wrong :jap:

Laughable.I've already said I"ll be pleased if the temple isn't damaged.You and your kind accept it seems anything from the Thai propaganda machine.There are many reports giving different accounts.The Washington Post says for example the temple has been damaged by Thai shrapnel, fortunately it seems nothing that serious.Bucholz doesn't seem to know what he thinks.The general theme seems to be to lash out wildly at anything that prevents a focus on the crass stupidity and incompetence of PAD and their totalitarian military supporters.

Thailand seems to be intent on undermining its own case.

Does it have one outside the deranged nationalists and their cynical military allies?

So far the Thais have refused any kind of independent scrutiny.Clearly the Thaksinite precept "The UN is not my father" lives on in the minds of these PAD creeps (I suppose I should be more forgiving to the army of Sino-Thai grannies that follow Sondhi around).Actually if I was Sondhi I would be buckling on my armour proof underware again: the elite don't like yellows out of control any more than the reds.And poor little Abhisit, on whom I have a slight crush, has made himself look rather a fool playing to different audiences.A word of advice Mark when you're dealing with useless tossers you have to call them out.And as for fatty Kasit I suppose his antics on this issue have at least provided a modicum of amusement

News Footage Shows Preah Vihear Safe from Clashes

Reuters has released footage that confirms Preah Vihear Temple has not been damaged by the recent shelling by Thailand as claimed by Cambodia.

A Cambodian military officer stationed at the temple previously claimed Thai troops' shelling damaged some parts of the 900-year-old Hindu temple.

However, recent footage released by Reuters has indicated that there has been only slight damage to the temple and the overall ruins are still in good condition.

According to the footage, there is a sign, written in both Khmer and English at the Preah Vihear temple saying "Preah Vihear belongs to us."

The Reuters reporter noted all residents have evacuated from the disputed area, adding armed Cambodian soldiers and monks are residing in the temple.

He went on to say the Thai military has mobilized a total of 20 tanks to the border in Si Sa Ket province although Thai authorities earlier claimed there has been no reinforcement of troops to the area.

That helps to clear up the earlier erroneous reports by Cambodia's Hun Sen in Post # 1 and Thaivisa's jayboy in Post # 36.

It doesn't clear anything up since we have seen no neutral report yet.However if the temple isn't damaged that's obviously good news.What your position is seems obscure since only a few posts ago you were chattering about damage done by small arms fire.Even the third party reference (the laughable Thai Asean News Network) to Reuters refers to slight damage.Let's all hope this interesting temple remains intact and the local villagers can return to their peaceful livelihoods, without more trouble stirring by the PAD fascists.

I can see why you're looking for some silver lining here.The PAD loving contingent have been exposed as dupes and no amount of bluster can change this.It's all rather complicated for some I agree.

Glad to read that cooler heads have prevailed, with a cease fire now in place.

This URL is to the CNN website where they have a good areal video of the Prasat Phra Viharn escarpment - seen at the mid-point of the video. Not sure how long CNN will have this video on their website, so see it while you can.

http://edition.cnn.c...eosearch&hpt=T1

It may be difficult for people who have not actually been to the temple site to tell from the video, but the high point of the escarpment, mesa or hill, is between the temple and Cambodia. In most places in the world, where a hill, mountain, or high is incorporated in a border between two countries, the border passes through the highest point of the geographical feature in question. However, in the 'Prasat Phra Viharn case', the border was placed below the top of the escarpment, or hill top, towards the Thailand side of the temple. I don't want to be guilty of pouring petrol on a fire, but I can certainly understand why the Thais are upset over the placement of the border at this location. I believe that if the border were logically placed in this location, the currently disputed territory and in addition the temple itself would all be in Thailand. To my way of thinking, the top of the escarpment, mesa or hill, is a more important and imposing geographic feature than any stream or other landmark in the area and should be the 'controlling feature' in regards to the border placement.

The 1904 agreement DOES put the temple and surrounding land in Thailand, based on the watershed ... ie, the top of the escarpment. The 1907 maps that were later attached to the 1904 agreement, for some unknown reason, moved off the watershed around the temple.

Hence the disputed territory and the ongoing problems.

What Thais are upset? A smallish group of quasi fascist idiots and frankly who gives a stuff what they think? Ongoing problem only for deranged right wing nationalists and their supporters.I suppose the Thai military has played a helpful role in solving the "problem" by shelling the temple and severely damaging it.Give them enough time and they could destroy it completely as well as killing local villagers.Of course there is also silliness on the Cambodian side but all in all it reminds one of Borges's comment on the Falklands disputants, two bald men fighting over a comb.

This is a time for Thais to unquestioningly unite behind their leaders in a calm inquiry, and firm denunciation of war. These are not alternatives.

But from all the evidence a calm enquiry would result in the appalling record of the Thai leadership on this issue being exposed, notably disgraceful behaviour by the PAD/military axis and Abhisit pandering to it.

Still always a silver lining...the PAD apologists, reactionaries, military wannabes from the Eastern Seaboard have been apparently silenced for the time being.

It has become a 'catch all' type of visa for people to facilitate their stay here and learn something, especially for people who 'fall thru the cracks' in the qualifications for other visa types.

I would have thought you have described the downside very concisely, namely the Ed Visa is appallingly abused by many foreigners who are not bona fide students, just seeing it as a means of staying in the country on a visa which clearly is designed for a different purpose.Those who make use of it - apart from the serious students (say 10%) - I would have thought are just asking for trouble.Another example of the way many foreigners abuse Thailand's generous and liberal entry system.

It shows some of the absurdity of thinking when maritime borders can be written so cock-eyed.

The absurdity of thinking is not about some paranoid concern about Cambodia's territorial or maritime ambitions at the expense of Thailand, but rather the deranged quasi fascist nationalism of PAD extremists and their bizarre foreign acolytes.

Chamlong is for sure the last one who can be said to advocate violence.

If he doesn't advocate violence his attitude towards bloodshed is very ambivalent when it suits his purposes.Check out the Young Turks role in the violence in 1976 at Thammasat (when he was present).Check out his in some ways admirable role in 1991 where he was very careless about the lives of his supporters.Check out his inflammatory language in the present day.

Yet another Thai Visa member who doesn't know his history.

Where are all those people who were claiming that the Government and the Yellows were one and the same?

I thought the article already addressed that???

"They used to be closely linked to Thai Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva but relations have since soured."

The people doing the linking were wrong to begin with, its only the logical deduction that has soured.

Other than a rather limited overlapping between a few individual PAD members and Dem party members, there was never more than a parallelism caused be a common foe; Thaksin. Beyond that there was little in common except for certain individuals, but certainly not either groups in a majority sense. A bully pulpit for making speeches at most.

The Dems benefited from the PAD being a stalking horse and not much else, and more aptly have had a continuous hassle about them the majority of the time. The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend, but I must at least treat them even handedly lest they become my enemy also. Now the PAD not getting their way has increased their list of enemies 10 fold, and ultimately to their own loss.

No there was much more in common, which was essentially to preserve the stranglehold of the elite and their mainly Sino-Thai middle class hangers on by seeking to permanently neutralise the rural Thai majority or at least strictly limit its influence.You are right that the elite was always ready to abandon PAD once it had served its original attack dog purpose.Remember the high level backers of PAD were the same groupings that backed violence and murder back in 1976, and for the same reasons.PAD can always be resurrected if the elite feels it necessary, but there's the same instinctive dislike of PAD independence as there is of Red influence .In any event ties continue:Finance Minister Korn and his rather disturbing wife are both PAD afficionados ( the fascist leader Oswald Moseley was a Wykehamist as well), and there are many more sympathisers in the Dem leadership.I am prepared to believe Abhisit's ambivalence merely represents a political calculation, but the Dems are the party of the elite and frankly anything goes to prevent the Thai people achieving or retaining their preferred government.