Thailand Rejects UN Visit To Temple In Cambodia Rift

[Democrat]

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.

Your earlier comment ("Thais admit they bombed, ruined one side of temple") isn't reflected in this article. They admit firing at Cambodian troops at the temple, and independent media have shown some damage from bullets. No bombing. Nothing ruined.

Yes, the article is online. Anyone wishing a direct link to it, please PM me and I would be happy to send it.

Yes, it was one of the articles that came up in my earlier search.

Yes, as it didn't fit the criteria of the news as had been earlier postulated (as per quote of the red reply below, which is a copy of Post # 15)

Robby nz:

He has publicly stated that a wing of the temple has been destroyed by Thai fire.

stepenwolf1958:

And Thais field admit it. Published in Bangkok Post. A few days ago.

It is not an admission by the Army for destroying one wing of the temple as had been posted.

Yes, the subtitle headline is as listed above, but no where in the article itself does it say that.

Yes, it is not "Chief Commander" that was speaking, but a Colonel acting as a Thai Army spokesman. The spokesman, Sansern, makes most of the Thai Army's announcements.

Yes, the only one reported to have actually said that a wing of the temple had been destroyed was the Cambodian Army spokesman, which has been reported on from numerous media sources.

.

If you read the bangkok post printed edition. You will not find the same online. You find a small portion of the article. Also if you look at the online BP and 30 minutes later look at the same article it could be changed. Sentences can be dropped and changed. I thought thats why we are thaivisa members so we can discuss it and get near the truth without actually ever knowing the truth.

[softgeorge]

Please help me here how can Thailand reject UN Visit if the area is in another country. It is sort of like Australia rejecting a UN visit to England.

[softgeorge]

^ 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 have to agree the redshirts are innocent here. The Yellow shirts are the ones putting pressure on the government to take action. Feel sorry for the redshirts, have a flood then it's the bloody redhirts the poor guys get blamed for every wrong in Thailand. If the red shirts had of barracaded the airport then the yellowshirts would not have had to do it.

[Buchholz]

Yes, the only one reported to have actually said that a wing of the temple had been destroyed was the Cambodian Army spokesman, which has been reported on from numerous media sources.

If you read the bangkok post printed edition. You will not find the same online. You find a small portion of the article. Also if you look at the online BP and 30 minutes later look at the same article it could be changed. Sentences can be dropped and changed. I thought thats why we are thaivisa members so we can discuss it and get near the truth without actually ever knowing the truth.

Has the printed edition BP or any other previous online BP version of the article mentioned any one, other the Cambodian Army spokesman, as having said a wing of the temple has been destroyed?

Has any media source printed any article attributing that assessment to any one other than the Cambodian Army?

.

[Buchholz]

^ 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?

The only crazed aspect is to attack a simple and valid simile with inferring that one part of the simile is involved with the second part of the simile, when no such direct connection of the Red Shirt involvement in Cambodia was stated.

I agree Red Shirts are not the topic, which is why there was no attempt to link the Red Shirts directly to the Cambodian issue; just a simile of strategic use of shielding.

Perhaps your eagerness to personally attack posters is getting the better of you.

[TAWP]

Now, all is clear.

Now we have officially confirmed the fact that the Thai side attacked the temple.

The only thing that has been 'officially confirmed' is that you and posters like Jayboy like to post half-truths and outright 3rd party lies and then does anything to try to backpedal the meaning of what was said...while at the same time saying that, while what was said might be wrong, in spirit it is right...