P A D Threatens To Take To Streets Again Over Preah Vihear, Makes Seven Demands

[LaoPo]

Sad that PAD now looks as protesting in the streets of Bangkok (which involves burning and looting) as a communication tool for scaring people. This demonstrates how little they understand how a democracy works.

The PAD (yellow shirts) never burnt or looted anything anywhere. That was the red shirts.

13 leaders, including Sondhi Limthongkul, of the PAD (Yellow Shirts) have been ordered by the Thailand's Civil Court to pay Baht 522 Million in damages, caused by PAD to Airports of Thailand Plc (AoT) for the eight-day blockade of Don Mueang and Suvarnabhumi airports in late 2008.

That does NOT include the Baht Billions of damages, caused to businesses, passengers, cancelled flights and decline in tourism and much more.

If one would research a little more about this Sondhi character one would find the rise and fall of a once brilliant Thai, now fallen to the lowest standards possible in Thai Society and thus there's not much left of his once large business empire and now left to conducting PAD behind the Yellow curtains of the PAD movement.

He's free on bail, like many others.

But the PAD should stop, creating another battle about "nothing" sine there is NOTHING to fight for by Thailand.

The Preah Vihear Temple complex was started early in the 9th (!) century, by Khmer people and was and IS on Cambodia soil:

Even in the case that the International Court of Justice (ICJ) would favor the disputed area to Thailand...even than, Preah Vihear Temple would still be on Cambodian soil !

What's next for the PAD and Khun Sondhi Limthongkul: start FIGHTING a war over ANGKOR WAT ?

Thats fine and dandy. But it was non violent just the same. Unlike the red shirt bird brain brigade. C'mon folks, get a grip.

And the next war about Preah Vihear will also be non-violent, like the first conflict with many killed?

Do we need another war, created and initiated by the PAD?

Who needs to get a grip?

The PAD needs to come back to their senses and please stop to withdraw the attention of the topic: "PAD threatens....." into yet another Red shirts topic!

Edited January 6, 2013 by Scott

[philw]

Panom Rung in South Buri Rum, Ta Muen Tot South Buri Rum and more. I don't like to evacuate my family again.....

Fatfather

Every idiot pushing for a confrontation should understand what you say - innocent people will suffer. We forget that when there was shelling last year we had refugees fleeing. Until someone lives in fear of an artillery shell landing on his/her family, I don't think the backers of a confrontation get it.

And you can bet your bottom baht that it won't be the PAD in the firing line!

Wife from Isaan then?

Suphan Buri.

Yours is from.....?????

[Cardiff1963]

Wonder if the yellow shirts are prepared to don their jackboots are March off to war and spare the soldiers

[rubl]

Wonder if the yellow shirts are prepared to don their jackboots are March off to war and spare the soldiers

As only a minority of yellow shirts seem to be in PAD nowadays, it's probably more correct to just refer to PAD members and their 'interesting' leaders.

Edited January 5, 2013 by rubl

[visionchaser45]

The PAD has a distorted view of their importance. They don't waste their time trying to promote candidates or win elections because they know they can't sell their ideas to the general public. They need to just dry up and blow away.

[nurofiend]

...threatens to take to streets again...

A clear indication that Thailand is getting more and more in demand for a proper and efficient riot police force.

Obviously, this is the price to pay when a developing country is striving for first world country status.

Agreed. You cannot have first world status with a 4th world Police force. The Police (though some hard working) are a serious danger to the stability of Thailand. Their refusal to act in certain protests is outrageous - and stems from the fact that they act with relative independence from the government.

For those that are against PAD, don't bother to complain now, you did not complain when the red shirts flooded the main business areas of Bangkok for months, terrorised the streets of Bangkok and disrupted nearly anyone coming from the outlying districts for any reason - including friends in Chit Lom who hid in their apartment whilst gun shots were constantly going off.

There needs to be fair elections held with UN oversight (and vote counting, and control of voting stations) and both parties (and conjoined protest movements), including the criminal who throws his money around to cause disorder when he does not get his way, need to accept the decision of the people. Perhaps it is time that every major law change must be approved by public referendum so that the corrupt crooked political system actually works in favor of the people it is designed to protect? Perhaps such gas assets as allegedly exist, should be nationalised if they become a Thai asset, and that all workers become state workers, all profits are given to a good cause outside of Bangkok, such as building better communities in the South?

"For those that are against PAD, don't bother to complain now, you did not complain when the red shirts flooded the main business areas of Bangkok for months, terrorised the streets of Bangkok and disrupted nearly anyone coming from the outlying districts for any reason - including friends in Chit Lom who hid in their apartment whilst gun shots were constantly going off."

i don't like what PAD stand for, and i also complained during the red protests... stop being so black and white and presumptuous.

we get it already, you don't like the red shirts, but this thread isn't about them, no need to vent on them at every oppurtunity.

it makes you seem narrow minded.

Edited January 5, 2013 by nurofiend

[rubl]

"For those that are against PAD, don't bother to complain now, you did not complain when the red shirts flooded the main business areas of Bangkok for months, terrorised the streets of Bangkok and disrupted nearly anyone coming from the outlying districts for any reason - including friends in Chit Lom who hid in their apartment whilst gun shots were constantly going off."

i don't like what PAD stand for, and i also complained during the red protests... stop being so black and white and presumptuous.

we get it already, you don't like the red shirts, but this thread isn't about them, no need to vent on them at every oppurtunity.

it makes you seem narrow minded.

I think I missed you complaining during the red-shirt protests. Was that just during the red-shirt protests or about them ?

Oh, btw registered on TV since 2011-03-08?

Edited January 5, 2013 by rubl

[OzMick]

Panom Rung in South Buri Rum, Ta Muen Tot South Buri Rum and more. I don't like to evacuate my family again.....

Fatfather

Every idiot pushing for a confrontation should understand what you say - innocent people will suffer. We forget that when there was shelling last year we had refugees fleeing. Until someone lives in fear of an artillery shell landing on his/her family, I don't think the backers of a confrontation get it.

Does your logic applying to artillery shells also relate to M-79 grenades?

[sadhukar]

The Thais are such bad losers when they don't get their way. Like little spoilt children.

The temple belongs to the Khmers, it is a Khmer Hindu temple. It was demarcated on the Cambodian side of the border.

Everyone seems to forget Thailand's habitual land grabs of Khmer and Cambodian territory, especially during WWII when fascist general Phibun invaded and claimed much of Western Cambodia for Thailand, only to be forced to give it all back when Thailand ended up on the losing side at the end of the war. Victory Monument in Bangkok commemorates that shameful land grab.

Throughout recent history Thailand has been the aggressor along the border with Cambodia, training, arming and conducting raids with Khmer Rouge cadres while Pol Pot was given safe refuge in Trat after his odious regime was ousted by the Vietnamese.

Oh, because one minor party which is barely a part of the Thai political system starts complaining, that means ALL Thais are sore losers, right? Nevermind the fact that the government is against their agenda? Way to make a sweeping generalization there.

P.S. Both Cambodia and Laos were Siamese tributary states before the French took over, the Thais see it as a reconquest of lost territories to a colonial power, so you might want to educate yourself before you start typing, buddy.

[diehard60]

Oh here we go again! I wonder what they (the PAD = People Against Democracy) will try to destroy this time? These people want to start a war with their neighbors. But i dont think it will be easy for them to win. And then there is the little matter of the civilian populational along the boarder, how many of them are going to have to die?

The PAD almost ruined Thailand before. Is the government going to let them try again?

[PoodMaiDai]

*yawn*

Let the children stomp their feet and scream like the babies and sore losers they really are. It belongs to Cambodia, end of story.

If the PAD want it so bad, let them go get it.

[whybother]

<snip>

But the PAD should stop, creating another battle about "nothing" sine there is NOTHING to fight for by Thailand.

The Preah Vihear Temple complex was started early in the 9th (!) century, by Khmer people and was and IS on Cambodia soil:

Even in the case that the International Court of Justice (ICJ) would favor the disputed area to Thailand...even than, Preah Vihear Temple would still be on Cambodian soil !

What's next for the PAD and Khun Sondhi Limthongkul: start FIGHTING a war over ANGKOR WAT ?

They're not protesting about the temple. They're protesting about the land around it. The ICJ hasn't made a ruling on that area yet.

[whybother]

It would be EXTREMELY ADVISABLE for an UNO Land Survey Team to go to the area and define for NOW and FOREVER where the watershed is. I have been there many times and this View of the official discussion is CLEARLY wrong ! And yes, you say it " the Thais accepted the maps that show the border going OFF the watershed" how simply right this is: the official THAI border goes off the watershed.

There is a small gorge between Mo Ee Daeng cliff (Thai) and Phra Vihear Temple cliff (Camb). The water that runs down the gorge runs eventually into Cambodia. So please offer me an explanation why the temple would be inside the Thai watershed.

The following map shows that the temple is on the top of the hill which drops sharply away to Cambodia and drops gently towards Thailand. The photo also shows that the temple is a the top of the hill.

There might be a small gorge on the way to the temple, but that is probably just because of the direction that the entrance road takes.

Edited January 6, 2013 by whybother

[Thai at Heart]

It would be EXTREMELY ADVISABLE for an UNO Land Survey Team to go to the area and define for NOW and FOREVER where the watershed is. I have been there many times and this View of the official discussion is CLEARLY wrong ! And yes, you say it " the Thais accepted the maps that show the border going OFF the watershed" how simply right this is: the official THAI border goes off the watershed.

There is a small gorge between Mo Ee Daeng cliff (Thai) and Phra Vihear Temple cliff (Camb). The water that runs down the gorge runs eventually into Cambodia. So please offer me an explanation why the temple would be inside the Thai watershed.

The following map shows that the temple is on the top of the hill which drops sharply away to Cambodia and drops gently towards Thailand. The photo also shows that the temple is a the top of the hill.

There might be a small gorge on the way to the temple, but that is probably just because of the direction that the entrance road takes.

Well it is an interesting contention and might explain that the map just follows the watershed, not some dastardly national agenda to damage Thailand.

What if the icj simply states the extra 4 km is inside Cambodia because of the water shed Wouldn't that put just the tiniest bit of mud on the faces of a few who keep sabre rattling? Wouldn't quite a lot of people have known this all along and just shut up for political benefit?

[whybother]

Well it is an interesting contention and might explain that the map just follows the watershed, not some dastardly national agenda to damage Thailand.

What if the icj simply states the extra 4 km is inside Cambodia because of the water shed Wouldn't that put just the tiniest bit of mud on the faces of a few who keep sabre rattling? Wouldn't quite a lot of people have known this all along and just shut up for political benefit?

In the 1962 decision, the court didn't consider where the watershed is since the "accepted" map shows that the temple is in Cambodia. I don't believe there is any doubt where the watershed is.

If the temple was on the Cambodian side of the watershed, then the Thais would never have disputed ownership as the treaty that they DID sign says that the border is on the watershed.

[Valentine]

I would venture to suggest the majority of Thais do not give a hoot about the temple or the small plot of land surrounding it but they do care about taking care of their families, standard of living, ensuring their children get a proper education. & having decent, affordable medical care. If the reds & the yellows could show that they also actually care about these things, instead of showing themselves as fronts for vested interests, then more people would get on board & hopefully, eventually, they will become strong enough to effect real & sustainable change.

Edited January 6, 2013 by Valentine

[smutcakes]

I expect all the people who live in the vicinity just pray the whole issue would go away. I very much doubt that messrs Sondhi or Chamlong's chauffeurs have ever even been to the area.

[Thai at Heart]

Well it is an interesting contention and might explain that the map just follows the watershed, not some dastardly national agenda to damage Thailand.

What if the icj simply states the extra 4 km is inside Cambodia because of the water shed Wouldn't that put just the tiniest bit of mud on the faces of a few who keep sabre rattling? Wouldn't quite a lot of people have known this all along and just shut up for political benefit?

In the 1962 decision, the court didn't consider where the watershed is since the "accepted" map shows that the temple is in Cambodia. I don't believe there is any doubt where the watershed is.

If the temple was on the Cambodian side of the watershed, then the Thais would never have disputed ownership as the treaty that they DID sign says that the border is on the watershed.

It is just i had always heard it assumed that the temple was on the Thai side of the watershed and that in some way they had been hood winked by the French.

If it is on the Cambodian side of the water shed thorough a geographical anomoly, as absurd as it may appear getting perched on a cliff, then it would be in line with the original agreement.

[whybother]

It is just i had always heard it assumed that the temple was on the Thai side of the watershed and that in some way they had been hood winked by the French.

If it is on the Cambodian side of the water shed thorough a geographical anomoly, as absurd as it may appear getting perched on a cliff, then it would be in line with the original agreement.

All the documentation I have read, and from pictures I have seen, it looks like it is on the Thai side of the watershed.

The Thai argument in 1962 was that they were hoodwinked by the French. The Thais didn't have the expertise to map the border, so asked the French to do it. The treaty was signed before the map was done. The map came later and wasn't officially accepted (or rejected) by the Thais. The Thais argued in 1962 that the map was wrong, but the court ruled that the Thais had plenty of time to reject the map, but since they didn't, it overrides the treaty.

[Thai at Heart]

It is just i had always heard it assumed that the temple was on the Thai side of the watershed and that in some way they had been hood winked by the French.

If it is on the Cambodian side of the water shed thorough a geographical anomoly, as absurd as it may appear getting perched on a cliff, then it would be in line with the original agreement.

All the documentation I have read, and from pictures I have seen, it looks like it is on the Thai side of the watershed.

The Thai argument in 1962 was that they were hoodwinked by the French. The Thais didn't have the expertise to map the border, so asked the French to do it. The treaty was signed before the map was done. The map came later and wasn't officially accepted (or rejected) by the Thais. The Thais argued in 1962 that the map was wrong, but the court ruled that the Thais had plenty of time to reject the map, but since they didn't, it overrides the treaty.

Well that is why the poster claiming that it is on the other side makes a very interesting contention.

[whybother]

Well that is why the poster claiming that it is on the other side makes a very interesting contention.

In the third picture I posted above, it shows the direction that the road to the temple takes. It may be that the road does go through "a gorge" to get to the temple. The first picture, which is the official map, shows that the current border doesn't follow the watershed.

[Thai at Heart]

Well that is why the poster claiming that it is on the other side makes a very interesting contention.

In the third picture I posted above, it shows the direction that the road to the temple takes. It may be that the road does go through "a gorge" to get to the temple. The first picture, which is the official map, shows that the current border doesn't follow the watershed.

I don't know. Although, it wouldn't be to difficult to prove. Maybe both sides have known this all along. Maybe this was why plodprasop was planning to try to push water up hill. Lol

[whybother]

Well that is why the poster claiming that it is on the other side makes a very interesting contention.

In the third picture I posted above, it shows the direction that the road to the temple takes. It may be that the road does go through "a gorge" to get to the temple. The first picture, which is the official map, shows that the current border doesn't follow the watershed.

I don't know. Although, it wouldn't be to difficult to prove. Maybe both sides have known this all along. Maybe this was why plodprasop was planning to try to push water up hill. Lol

If the temple was on the Cambodian side of the temple, then they would have used that argument all along. They have only used the argument that the maps had been accepted by Thailand.

[Thai at Heart]

Well that is why the poster claiming that it is on the other side makes a very interesting contention.

In the third picture I posted above, it shows the direction that the road to the temple takes. It may be that the road does go through "a gorge" to get to the temple. The first picture, which is the official map, shows that the current border doesn't follow the watershed.

I don't know. Although, it wouldn't be to difficult to prove. Maybe both sides have known this all along. Maybe this was why plodprasop was planning to try to push water up hill. Lol

If the temple was on the Cambodian side of the temple, then they would have used that argument all along. They have only used the argument that the maps had been accepted by Thailand.

Very true. The issue to me, is that in the context of colonial times there were many possible reasons why Thailand accepted the line at the time, so to revisit it 100 years later discounts the decision making process of the time.

[crazygreg44]

Sorry folks, but I must say, we are wasting our time.

There IS a gorge between the temple and the Thai outpost on Moo Ee Daeng. And all the water that runs into this gorge will eventually flow into Cambodia. And all the water that rains onto the disputed 4 km area , too, is running into Cambodia.

This is a fact and could easily be prooved by shedding a few thousands of tons of dyed water onto the temple, the last stretch of raod leading to it from Thailand and onto the Shrine that the Thai army occupies. Also, all the area around the temple cliff. And also into the gorge. The gorge is not small - it is big enough to place all the temple cliff plus the surrounding outside of the watershed onto cambodian soil. And, folks, I am telling you, all this dyed water will later be found in Cambodia.

There is a poster who says the road "might" lead into a "maybe there is a gorge" - I insist on this poster to shut up before he spreads Ass-umptions that he cannot back. The VERY POINT where the road starts to descend to the gorge, is THE WATERSHED LINE ! Dumb a ton of green dyed water and I will give you a truckload of best Islay Whiskey if just one drop of it will flow back into Thailand.

[whybother]

Very true. The issue to me, is that in the context of colonial times there were many possible reasons why Thailand accepted the line at the time, so to revisit it 100 years later discounts the decision making process of the time.

The maps were never officially accepted by either side. The treaty was signed in 1904 and the maps produced in 1907. The "Mixed Commission" that made all the agreements on the treaty didn't exist when the map was completed. http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?sum=284&code=ct&p1=3&p2=3&case=45&k=46&p3=5

The Cambodians used the map as "proof" that the temple was in Cambodia, and Thailand argued that the map was never officially accepted. The court accepted the map.

Also, the court didn't rule on the land surrounding the temple, since Cambodia only asked about the temple when they took it to court in 1959.

Given the court accepted the maps in it's original decision (although it wasn't unanimous), it would be more than likely to rule that the surrounding land is also in Cambodia.

But, since this current issue is about clarification of the 1962 case in reference to the surrounding land, the court might just say that that case wasn't about the surrounding land and was only about the temple, leaving the surrounding land in dispute.

[smutcakes]

Sorry folks, but I must say, we are wasting our time.

There IS a gorge between the temple and the Thai outpost on Moo Ee Daeng. And all the water that runs into this gorge will eventually flow into Cambodia. And all the water that rains onto the disputed 4 km area , too, is running into Cambodia.

This is a fact and could easily be prooved by shedding a few thousands of tons of dyed water onto the temple, the last stretch of raod leading to it from Thailand and onto the Shrine that the Thai army occupies. Also, all the area around the temple cliff. And also into the gorge. The gorge is not small - it is big enough to place all the temple cliff plus the surrounding outside of the watershed onto cambodian soil. And, folks, I am telling you, all this dyed water will later be found in Cambodia.

There is a poster who says the road "might" lead into a "maybe there is a gorge" - I insist on this poster to shut up before he spreads Ass-umptions that he cannot back. The VERY POINT where the road starts to descend to the gorge, is THE WATERSHED LINE ! Dumb a ton of green dyed water and I will give you a truckload of best Islay Whiskey if just one drop of it will flow back into Thailand.

Greg, on TV forum, assumptions is all you need for it to be true.

[Thai at Heart]

Very true. The issue to me, is that in the context of colonial times there were many possible reasons why Thailand accepted the line at the time, so to revisit it 100 years later discounts the decision making process of the time.

The maps were never officially accepted by either side. The treaty was signed in 1904 and the maps produced in 1907. The "Mixed Commission" that made all the agreements on the treaty didn't exist when the map was completed. http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?sum=284&code=ct&p1=3&p2=3&case=45&k=46&p3=5

The Cambodians used the map as "proof" that the temple was in Cambodia, and Thailand argued that the map was never officially accepted. The court accepted the map.

Also, the court didn't rule on the land surrounding the temple, since Cambodia only asked about the temple when they took it to court in 1959.

Given the court accepted the maps in it's original decision (although it wasn't unanimous), it would be more than likely to rule that the surrounding land is also in Cambodia.

But, since this current issue is about clarification of the 1962 case in reference to the surrounding land, the court might just say that that case wasn't about the surrounding land and was only about the temple, leaving the surrounding land in dispute.

I honestly hope they rule it in Cambodia just to legally put it to bed once and for all, and then the current government negotiate some kind of agreement for possible use and access.

In a way have ptp on power now means they may be able t to rein in the army and keep a lid on the pad. Otherwise, it would have lead to another serious armed confrontation inevitably.

[whybother]

Sorry folks, but I must say, we are wasting our time.

There IS a gorge between the temple and the Thai outpost on Moo Ee Daeng. And all the water that runs into this gorge will eventually flow into Cambodia. And all the water that rains onto the disputed 4 km area , too, is running into Cambodia.

This is a fact and could easily be prooved by shedding a few thousands of tons of dyed water onto the temple, the last stretch of raod leading to it from Thailand and onto the Shrine that the Thai army occupies. Also, all the area around the temple cliff. And also into the gorge. The gorge is not small - it is big enough to place all the temple cliff plus the surrounding outside of the watershed onto cambodian soil. And, folks, I am telling you, all this dyed water will later be found in Cambodia.

There is a poster who says the road "might" lead into a "maybe there is a gorge" - I insist on this poster to shut up before he spreads Ass-umptions that he cannot back. The VERY POINT where the road starts to descend to the gorge, is THE WATERSHED LINE ! Dumb a ton of green dyed water and I will give you a truckload of best Islay Whiskey if just one drop of it will flow back into Thailand.

The fact that there is a gorge between the Thai outpost and the temple doesn't prove that that is the watershed.

The watershed is considered to be at the top of the range or the ridge line. The temple slopes down towards Thailand, so that would indicate that the top of the range is on the Cambodian side of the temple, meaning that the temple is on the Thai side of the watershed.

BUT, I don't believe that the watershed is in dispute. The Thais are using the treaty for their case. The Cambodians are using the maps (as posted above) for their case. The Cambodians aren't arguing that the temple is on the Cambodian side of the watershed. They are only arguing that the maps attached to the treaty a couple of years after the treaty was signed show that the temple is in Cambodia.

[whybother]

I honestly hope they rule it in Cambodia just to legally put it to bed once and for all, and then the current government negotiate some kind of agreement for possible use and access.

In a way have ptp on power now means they may be able t to rein in the army and keep a lid on the pad. Otherwise, it would have lead to another serious armed confrontation inevitably.

The surrounding land which is in dispute isn't needed for Thai access to the temple. The land used for access by Thailand isn't in dispute. The land that is in dispute is basically just farm land.