Thai-Cambodia Border Fighting 'Damages' Temple

[metisdead]

One inflammatory post removed.

[animatic]

Are pigs flying yet? Nope, I guess not,

so the waiting on, hoped for, contrite comment is likely a long one.

Edited February 11, 2011 by animatic

[Ricardo]

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.

Perhaps he might ask his former economic-adviser, for the name of some experienced & effective international-lawyer or P.R.-expert, who might help him dodge the blame for sending in his troops to a World Heritage Site ?

[jayboy]

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.

Edited February 11, 2011 by jayboy

[Pi Sek]

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.

This paragraph is totally contradictory - just read it again! But I have to admit, I don't know why the PAD posters are being so quiet now, or that they are being quiet, or even that those who you say are PAD posters are even PAD posters... maybe you can enlighten me. Just see the below quote of me, who claims to have supported the PAD until they invaded NBT, less than 2 weeks ago... this post attracted some criticism from a more zealous Yellow.

However, my opinion is absolutely against what the PAD suggest - specifically their demand to evict the 'squatting' Cambodians by force. This would be an act of war! I don't know about you, I'd rather see talks take place than open fighting.

The PAD are suggesting that the ongoing negotiations are being made without the villagers' rights or Thailand's sovereignty in mind - they say the negotiations are are being made for the personal gain of politicians (hence their other two demands). I would say that, if the govt is not talking to people in the area, then they would have a point. However, the simple fact that the govt sent representatives (e.g. Panich) to check it out themselves nullifies this argument.

Maj Gen Chamlong - it is never too late to talk. Like the Red Shirts, you have a valid grievance. However, like the Red Shirts' grievances, your grievances are being addressed by the Thai government, in a way that placates the vast majority of the country. What the ____ do you think you're playing at? Did you get jealous when Suthep told Jatuporn he was "one of a number of heartless people using innocent civilians for their own gain"? Did he upstage you?

As for who is the aggressor, noone here knows of course. We don't have all the information, we only have Thai- and Cambodian government claims and media reports that conflict with the government ones (no change there then). What we do know is that at least one party is lieing. We know from the Reuters reports that the Cambodians are lieing. I suspect that they are both lieing to some degree.

I also notice you are still lumping everything into the pro- or anti- Yellow crowds. We have seen several thousand news articles over the last year suggesting that there are critical divides within these groups, and some groups which you would have previously put in with any group (e.g. Democrats = PAD), it turns out, have nothing in common at all. The Democrat government are not the yellow shirts, they're not the army, etc. They are one of the two mainstream political parties in Thailand.

There are way more than two sides in Thailand - and that's before we take into consideration that there's at least one other country involved. Many anti-Thaksin types still don't accept this just as many pro-Thaksin types don't. Shouldn't that mean that the anti- and pro-Thaksin crowds should team up? (Some PAD nutcase actually did suggest that, didn't he!)

I know I am opinionated, and I know it is not a quality at times. I don't think you see the same in yourself. Whilst you do come up with some valid points about presumptions on the part of a group of posters, may I politely suggest that the same points could be made about various other groups of posters, possibly including yourself? I am really trying to not be rude here, although I realise it might rub you up the wrong way a little - but hey, we're only human.

[SomTumTiger]

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.

This paragraph is totally contradictory - just read it again! But I have to admit, I don't know why the PAD posters are being so quiet now, or that they are being quiet, or even that those who you say are PAD posters are even PAD posters... maybe you can enlighten me. Just see the below quote of me, who claims to have supported the PAD until they invaded NBT, less than 2 weeks ago... this post attracted some criticism from a more zealous Yellow.

However, my opinion is absolutely against what the PAD suggest - specifically their demand to evict the 'squatting' Cambodians by force. This would be an act of war! I don't know about you, I'd rather see talks take place than open fighting.

The PAD are suggesting that the ongoing negotiations are being made without the villagers' rights or Thailand's sovereignty in mind - they say the negotiations are are being made for the personal gain of politicians (hence their other two demands). I would say that, if the govt is not talking to people in the area, then they would have a point. However, the simple fact that the govt sent representatives (e.g. Panich) to check it out themselves nullifies this argument.

Maj Gen Chamlong - it is never too late to talk. Like the Red Shirts, you have a valid grievance. However, like the Red Shirts' grievances, your grievances are being addressed by the Thai government, in a way that placates the vast majority of the country. What the ____ do you think you're playing at? Did you get jealous when Suthep told Jatuporn he was "one of a number of heartless people using innocent civilians for their own gain"? Did he upstage you?

As for who is the aggressor, noone here knows of course. We don't have all the information, we only have Thai- and Cambodian government claims and media reports that conflict with the government ones (no change there then). What we do know is that at least one party is lieing. We know from the Reuters reports that the Cambodians are lieing. I suspect that they are both lieing to some degree.

I also notice you are still lumping everything into the pro- or anti- Yellow crowds. We have seen several thousand news articles over the last year suggesting that there are critical divides within these groups, and some groups which you would have previously put in with any group (e.g. Democrats = PAD), it turns out, have nothing in common at all. The Democrat government are not the yellow shirts, they're not the army, etc. They are one of the two mainstream political parties in Thailand.

There are way more than two sides in Thailand - and that's before we take into consideration that there's at least one other country involved. Many anti-Thaksin types still don't accept this just as many pro-Thaksin types don't. Shouldn't that mean that the anti- and pro-Thaksin crowds should team up? (Some PAD nutcase actually did suggest that, didn't he!)

I know I am opinionated, and I know it is not a quality at times. I don't think you see the same in yourself. Whilst you do come up with some valid points about presumptions on the part of a group of posters, may I politely suggest that the same points could be made about various other groups of posters, possibly including yourself? I am really trying to not be rude here, although I realise it might rub you up the wrong way a little - but hey, we're only human.

Bravo my Friend :jap:

POST OF THE YEAR (so far)

[Pi Sek]

^^

I think that if jayboy and I met outside Thaivisa, we would get along pretty well as it happens. I suspect we're actually quite similar in nature. By the way, that would be an insult to us both, I'm sure

Edited February 11, 2011 by Pi Sek

[siamiam]

I don't recall making allegations against PAD posters....

.... I have to admit, I don't know why the PAD posters are being so quiet now, or that they are being quiet, or even that those who you say are PAD posters are even PAD posters...

Reading the above, I was concerned that I might be considered a 'now quiet PAD poster', so I am chiming back in to state that I am not a PAD poster and never intended to be one. My feelings on the border placement in question, as expressed earlier on this thread, were formulated years ago, long before I had ever heard of the PAD. I do support those who will try to work out a solution to this problem without resorting to violence. The reason I have been 'quiet' on this thread since my last post is because I didn't feel I had anything more to say on the issue, at least not anything that is appropriate at this time. I have been learning more by reading than by writing. I respect the intelligence and opinions of all the posters here. I felt that when others had stated the issue of border placement at the location in question has been a decades old controversy, there was no need for me to redundantly state the same.

Edited February 11, 2011 by siamiam

[Buchholz]

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

and then in the next paragraph:

back pedalling hard.

[jayboy]

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.

[Buchholz]

^ I post credible reports and photos from reliable sources and challenge posts that originate from misreadings of media sources or are just pure unsubstantiated 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.

.

Edited February 11, 2011 by Buchholz

[jayboy]

^ 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.

[whybother]

<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.

Edited February 11, 2011 by whybother

[jayboy]

<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).

[whybother]

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

Edited February 11, 2011 by whybother

[Buchholz]

^ 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.

.

Edited February 11, 2011 by Buchholz

[TAWP]

No sorry that just isn't true.You accept blindly propaganda from Thai Government sponsored sources

Reuters?

[jayboy]

^ 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.

[Rhalovely]

^ 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.

He is just another professional poster on the payroll of the Royal Thai Government.

[jayboy]

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.

[whybother]

Oh now it's not "undamaged", hmm.

Where have I said otherwise?

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.

Yes. Let's wait. There might have been a heavily damaged and collapsed section that the Cambodian military failed to point out to reporters.

Can't think why they would have missed such a good opportunity to prove their statements.

[Buchholz]

^ 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.

So only a portion of my posts don't meet your specifications. Thank you for acknowledging that my posts come from an extremely varied sources of news.

It's a shame others don't often do the same.

If you don't feel there's any difference between an identified by byline, contracted reporter, with Reuters for example, and some unidentified Bobby the Blogger-type, that's up to you.

I don't discount all bloggers, by the way, and all media sources do contribute to the information base.

It's just that some do more than others in my opinion.

If you wish to post something of mine, feel free, but at this point, I think you're wasting other forum readers' time with your boring over-generalizations and over-personalizations.

But never mind, up to you.

I do think, though, that you've run this sufficiently into the ground.

I'll take my leave for now.... there's news to post.

.

Edited February 11, 2011 by Buchholz

[Pi Sek]

No-one was saying it wasn't undamaged. They were saying that the only damages are minor masonry work, not a missing wing like Hun Sen was touting. Besides that, if "heavily armed" Cambodian soldiers are firing weapons at Thailand from within the temple... come on, honestly, do you really expect the Thais to ask them to move away from the temple before they shoot back???

This whole debate surged up because of your claims that the Thai armed forces were...

shelling the temple and severely damaging it.Give them enough time and they could destroy it completely as well as killing local villagers.

According the only report offered to date - which, by the way, was NOT from any media source controlled by the Thais as you seem to elude to - this is just not true.

I understand that you don't trust anyone. I trust very few people myself, including Reuters - they've got the news wrong in the past, just like the rest of the "trusted international news media". But you should at least read it, at least if you want to offer an opinion on it - otherwise how can you discredit it?

By the way, UNESCO can get in any time they want - it's in Cambodia, after all, so the Thais have no way of "not allowing them in". All they have to do is get to Cambodia and fork out for a helicopter or spend a day or so trekking through the jungle. They cancelled their visit, none of us know why.

[Pi Sek]

He is just another professional poster on the payroll of the Royal Thai Government.

Whilst I can see where you're coming from - the Thai government bloody well ought to be paying some people to oppose the tripe coming from the likes of Robert Amsterdam - no, I think he is just a frustrated wannabe journalist

(That's a joke, sorry SJ!)

[Buchholz]

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.

He is just another professional poster on the payroll of the Royal Thai Government.

If your 4 hours of membership says so...