Thai-Cambodia Border Fighting 'Damages' Temple

[SomTumTiger]

The World Court ruled in 1962 that Preah Vihear itself belonged to Cambodia, although its main entrance lies in Thailand and the 4.6-square-kilometre (1.8-square-mile) area around the temple is claimed by both sides.

"World Court in 1962? " Wasn't it some French guys who drew a map wrong?

:jap:

I have been wondering about this. Being a 'farang belonging to Thailand', I am aware that I may be biased in favor of the Thais in this dispute. I have no experience with land surveying or map drawing, but when I went to the Prasat Phra Viharn a few ago, the second thing I thought upon arriving at the temple's cliff top, was 'why is this in Cambodia?', (the first thought I had was 'what a beautiful temple and location'). I believe I read somewhere that the map was drawn thus, because of a stream in the area. The only 'stream' I saw in the area was dried up and looking insignificant, to me. And, the temple sits near the edge of an impressive escarpment, not much above the land to the immediate north in Thailand; to the south, far below lies Cambodia. Perhaps someone can enlighten me and help me see the logic of this area being in Cambodia.

Because the French said so -

[siamiam]

The world is full of border disputes and conflicts and death and mayhem caused by the arbitrary drawing of lines that made little sense to local populations in colonial times that have real meaning now. The advent of the nation state and more so the advent of artifically created nation states by external powers is a complicated issue. Im surprised nobody has seen this angle before.

One possible, though I'm sure unlikely, solution to the current dispute between Thailand and Cambodia, would be for them to do a land swap. If there were an area on the border in Thailand that the Thais were willing to part with in exchange for the currently disputed ground, and the Cambodians were also amenable, because an area holding the same or better promise for them had been found, perhaps the border could be redrawn, if ever so slightly, in a way to appease both peoples. It would have to work out well for both countries, neither loosing financially or in land area. Then there would be the local populations of both areas to consider. I guess it's too much to hope for.

Edited February 8, 2011 by siamiam

[siamiam]

...If there were an area on the border in Thailand that the Thais were willing to part with in exchange for the currently disputed ground...

I did not mean to suggest that an exchange could take place equal to the entire amount of disputed territory, (which in effect would concede the disputed territory to Cambodia). I meant to suggest that both sides would agree that they each 'possessed' half of the disputed territory, which could be done without specifying who held what part and this would be the 'land swap' amount. Perhaps if they could agree to that, they may not need to swap land, just share with each other what they have been fighting over.

Hopefully the Thais and Cambodians will be able to resolve this problem without any further loss of life.

Edited February 8, 2011 by siamiam

[siamiam]

The World Court ruled in 1962 that Preah Vihear itself belonged to Cambodia, although its main entrance lies in Thailand and the 4.6-square-kilometre (1.8-square-mile) area around the temple is claimed by both sides.

"World Court in 1962? " Wasn't it some French guys who drew a map wrong?

:jap:

I have been wondering about this. Being a 'farang belonging to Thailand', I am aware that I may be biased in favor of the Thais in this dispute. I have no experience with land surveying or map drawing, but when I went to the Prasat Phra Viharn a few ago, the second thing I thought upon arriving at the temple's cliff top, was 'why is this in Cambodia?', (the first thought I had was 'what a beautiful temple and location'). I believe I read somewhere that the map was drawn thus, because of a stream in the area. The only 'stream' I saw in the area was dried up and looking insignificant, to me. And, the temple sits near the edge of an impressive escarpment, not much above the land to the immediate north in Thailand; to the south, far below lies Cambodia. Perhaps someone can enlighten me and help me see the logic of this area being in Cambodia.

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. At most places in the world, where a hill, mountain, or high point 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; moved downhill towards Thailand. 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.

Edited February 9, 2011 by siamiam

[whybother]

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.

[jayboy]

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.

[jayjay0]

On one of the other threads there is a report that a Vietnamese reporter said there are only some masonary chips from small arms fire at the temple.

Contrast that to the pix of a school and Wat bombed in Thailand.

Masonary chips from small arms fire. I thought they were using artilarey.

What was a Thai doing in the Temple it is clearly no question even in Thailand that it is Cambodian territory.

Did he try to sell you a bridge also?

[Robby nz]

jayboy

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.

Perhaps Jayboy you could post the pix of the severely damaged temple so we can all see, and of course the casualty list of the Cambodian villagers.

I have already seen the destruction caused by the Cambodian bombardments and seen the Thai casulty figures so you neednt show them.

Sorry off topic: in the last two posts of yours that I have read you havent mentioned 'elite' once...your slipping.

jayjay0

Posted A minute ago

Robby nz, on 2011-02-07 20:04:13, said:

On one of the other threads there is a report that a Vietnamese reporter said there are only some masonary chips from small arms fire at the temple.

Contrast that to the pix of a school and Wat bombed in Thailand.

Masonary chips from small arms fire. I thought they were using artilarey.

What was a Thai doing in the Temple it is clearly no question even in Thailand that it is Cambodian territory.

Did he try to sell you a bridge also?

Read again it says a Vietnamese reporter not Thai, the report said he had been there and seen.

Reports say that small armes have been used as well as heavier stuff.

If you have any better up to date (factual) info or pix please post them.

[Pi Sek]

What Thais are upset? A smallish group of quasi fascist idiots and frankly who gives a stuff what they think?

Well, the polls released yesterday suggest 80% of Thais supported military action against Cambodia. Admittedly the polls didn't poll every Thai person over the country but I think it's still a noteworthy statistic, especially since 75% of them didn't support Abhisit's supposed apathy to the situation.

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.

Totally agree with your synopsis here.

However, if your comb had someone else's split ends and dandruff tangled up in it, would you object? Even bald men have the occasional strand of hair. Hey, maybe he was using it to scratch his sweaty back. If the offending person refused to buy their own comb after years of your complaints, would you consider punching them in the nose?

What if a third-party ruled that the comb was "public property"?

Then add, that the comb is not just a hair-gromming instrument. Hidden within the handle is the front door key to massive oil reserves, political gain through nationalism and political game through international diplomacy.

Then add to that, that you don't have anything to legimately prove beyond any doubt that it was your comb. What's more, maybe it was his comb after all - and maybe not. Should they DNA test the dandruff particles over the ages to find out whose dam_n comb it is?

(All of this can be applied speculatively to both sides of course.)

Edited February 9, 2011 by Pi Sek

[whybother]

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.

There has been a border dispute for decades. This is just the latest flare up. It's just the "smallish group of quasi fascist idiots" talking about war and occupying Angkor Wat.

But that doesn't mean that most Thais want to give up the land and hand it over to Cambodia. They are just generally happy the peaceful negotiations, rather than a military solution.

Have you got any pictures of the severe damage to the temple caused by the Thai military shelling it? I thought there were just some small arms damage, apparently reported by a Vietnamese reporter.

I haven't seen any reports of the Thai military killing any villagers either. Maybe you can post some links.

[whybother]

Cambodia Denies Troop Presence at Preah Vihear Temple

Cambodia has issued a communique, denying that Cambodian soldiers are using Preah Vihear Temple as a stronghold for heavy artillery operations, even though pictures circulated in the media show otherwise.

Cambodia issued a statement, which was read out by the Cambodian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation spokesman, denying that Cambodian soldiers have been stationed at the Preah Vihear Temple, as the place is a sacred religious site and a tourism destination.

Cambodia further claimed there are only a small number of police officers equipped with small arms safeguarding the area.

The statement was issued in response to the address by the Royal Thai Army Spokesperson Colonel Sansern Kaewkamnerd, which alleged that Cambodian troops used the ancient temple as a base for battery operations.

Cambodia's statement seemed to be inconsistent with pictures posted on the websites of various news agencies such as Reuters, and even Cambodia-based Phnom Penh Post, which showed scores of Cambodian soldiers at the temple.

The Cambodian government has made complaints twice with the United Nations Security Council, accusing Thailand of firing shells at Preah Vihear temple and causing heavy damage.

However, no media has pictures that could support Cambodia's claims. So far, there are only images showing cracks caused by bullet shrapnel and rubble that was already present before the clashes.

-- Tan Network 2011-02-09

[whybother]

Cambodia further claimed there are only a small number of police officers equipped with small arms safeguarding the area.

Cambodia's statement seemed to be inconsistent with pictures posted on the websites of various news agencies such as Reuters, and even Cambodia-based Phnom Penh Post, which showed scores of Cambodian soldiers at the temple.

Well, well, well. Who's been telling porkies?

[Pi Sek]

I'd also like to see the temple damages. Everything I have read to date speaks of exactly what Robby nz is saying - small arms fire causing masonry damage.

Hun Sen is talking about a wing of the temple collapsing and Thai artillery shells falling many km within Cambodian territory (which of the many non-verified border lines is he using for reference?) - Sansern is saying that this is propaganda from those who intend to convert a temple into a military base.

At the end of the day, civilians of both nations are dead in a military conflict. This can only be considered as a bilateral failure.

[Robby nz]

And wont the Phnom Penh Post be in strife.

Probably closed down tomorrow with some new cell mates for Veera.

[Buchholz]

jayboy

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.

Perhaps Jayboy you could post the pix of the severely damaged temple so we can all see, and of course the casualty list of the Cambodian villagers.

Read again it says a Vietnamese reporter not Thai, the report said he had been there and seen.

If you have any better up to date (factual) info or pix please post them.

Have you got any pictures of the severe damage to the temple caused by the Thai military shelling it? I thought there were just some small arms damage, apparently reported by a Vietnamese reporter.

I'd also like to see the temple damages. Everything I have read to date speaks of exactly what Robby nz is saying - small arms fire causing masonry damage.

Fourthed.

[webfact]

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.

-- Tan Network 2011-02-10

[Buchholz]

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.

[jayboy]

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.

[Buchholz]

The only blustering is "shelling the temple and severely damaging it."

[Pi Sek]

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:

Edited February 10, 2011 by Pi Sek

[jayboy]

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.

[Buchholz]

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.

Buchholz knows the difference between some pock marks from bullets and Hun Sen's "one wing of the building had collapsed" and your "shelling the temple and severely damaging it."

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.

[jayboy]

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

Edited February 10, 2011 by jayboy

[Buchholz]

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.

Can you comprehend the difference between bullets and shelling?

Can you please not supplant my actual text with text that you supply that is different?

Can you point to any posts where I have stated that Thais were never shooting at the Cambodians either inside or outside the temple?

Edited February 10, 2011 by Buchholz

[Buchholz]

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:

I think you're in for a long wait, Pi Sek.

[ballpoint]

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.

[Phuket Stan]

Jayboy must have watched a different interview of Khun Korn than the one I saw on ABC...other posters opinions would be welcome

[animatic]

" ...you and your kind...."

Such a nice reasoned response to those who disagree with you.

Must lump them labeled as 'some other kind' as within a pejorative under-grouping, to avoid getting flame warnings for being to direct with flames. Same old same old.

And this type of attitude is part and parcel of kind of us vs them mindset that has created this proto-war on our doorsteps. Our kind vs their kind...

Of course their kind is not as good as our kind...

Oh my, those that are different or think different must be bad!

Edited February 10, 2011 by animatic

[MikeOboe57]

If the Cambodian Armed Forces have stationed soldiers inside the Temple area then this constitutes a violation of § 4 of the World Heritage Convention.

Article 4

Each State Party to this Convention recognizes that the duty of ensuring the identification, protection, conservation, presentation and transmission to future generations of the cultural and natural heritage referred to in Articles 1 and 2 and situated on its territory, belongs primarily to that State. It will do all it can to this end, to the utmost of its own resources and, where appropriate, with any international assistance and co-operation, in particular, financial, artistic, scientific and technical, which it may be able to obtain.

Using the Temple or its surroundings as fire bases for heavy weapons, observation posts or a military camp site is not covered by the World Heritage Convention and makes the Temple area a legitimate military target. Mr Hun Sen will have to do some explaining on that matter. But I'm sure he will come up with a "nice" justification.

[MJP]

Can't post the image here, won't let me

Dunno what it says. But it's a good aerial photo with boundary lines and flags.

Edited February 10, 2011 by MJP