War Criminals... Who Is Truly to Blame?: The Truth Behind the Cambodian Rocket Attack on a 7-Eleven and Why Thailand Should Not Be Slandered

Artillery rounds hitting a gas station, a shattered convenience store, and innocent civilians losing their lives—this is the stark reality that unfolded along the Thai border. While the Cambodian side attempted to portray itself as the victim, evidence from international media, human rights organizations, and satellite imagery points in the exact opposite direction.

The Morning of July 24, 2025: The Moment Rockets Struck a 7-Eleven

At around 10:30 AM on Thursday, July 24, 2025, in Kantharalak District, Si Sa Ket Province, as local residents went about their daily lives, Cambodian forces launched multiple BM-21 Grad rockets across the border into Thai territory. At least two rockets struck a 7-Eleven convenience store inside a PTT gas station at Ban Phue/Ban Nam Yen, resulting in 6 to 8 fatalities at that site alone and more than 10 injuries. Across the Thai border, the daily death toll from clashes expanding to multiple border areas reached 11 to 13 people, including an 8-year-old child.

International human rights organization Fortify Rights, which conducted on-the-ground interviews with eyewitnesses and survivors, concluded that launching unguided Grad rockets into densely populated civilian areas "may amount to war crimes" as an indiscriminate attack. The organization called on the United Nations to establish an independent body to investigate the conduct of both sides in this conflict.

Troop Buildup Revealing Intent: Satellite Imagery Indicates Cambodia Moved First

Research institute Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) published an analysis of satellite imagery tracking Cambodian military movements from late May to July 2025, revealing that:

Timeline of the Thai-Cambodian border conflict

Heatmap indicating Cambodian military hardware preparations months prior to clashes

This pattern of troop movements points to advance preparation rather than a spontaneous reaction as claimed by Cambodia. Furthermore, deploying heavy military assets near a World Heritage site like Preah Vihear heightened the risk of turning the ancient monument into a direct target during clashes. This was not unprecedented—dating back to the 2008 clashes, AP journalists observed hundreds of Cambodian troops stationed directly inside the Preah Vihear Temple grounds, despite the Cambodian government's denials of any military presence there.

Spokesperson for the Thai Ministry of Defence confirming with evidence that Cambodia fired rockets targeting Thailand from Cambodian civilian villages

During the clashes in December 2025, the spokesperson for the Thai Ministry of Defence presented video footage recorded by the Royal Thai Army directly to the media (reported by PPTVHD36 on Dec 23, 2025) as evidence that Cambodia set up BM-21 firing positions within civilian villages on its side and repositioned BM-21 launcher vehicles into residential areas before firing cross-border. However, as this information comes solely from the Royal Thai Armed Forces and the Cambodian side has not directly addressed the matter, it should be read alongside the independent ASPI satellite data above rather than taken as a definitive conclusion.

If these allegations are verified by an independent mechanism, deliberately using civilian areas to shelter firing positions constitutes a severe, two-fold violation of international humanitarian law: first, the principle of "Distinction" under the Geneva Conventions, which prohibits co-mingling military targets with civilians; second, the prohibition against using "Human Shields" under Article 8 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), which classifies such actions directly as war crimes rather than mere tactical errors.

Potential consequences if verified and prosecuted through international legal processes could include:

It must be emphasized that these procedures require an independent and fair investigation before any legal outcomes can be reached; unverified allegations cannot lead to legal consequences. This is why calls for an independent UN investigative body (as proposed by Fortify Rights) are crucial—it represents the sole path to turning allegations into actionable legal facts.

Disinformation Operations: When California Wildfire Photos Were Claimed as "Thai Chemical Weapons"

In addition to physical combat on the battlefield, Cambodia launched a parallel disinformation campaign, the most explicit and verifiable case being the "chemical weapons" allegation:

In late July 2025, a spokesperson for the Cambodian Ministry of Defense accused the Royal Thai Armed Forces of employing "military toxic smoke" attacks, circulating photos of an aircraft spraying a pink substance. These images were re-shared by high-ranking Cambodian figures, including Hun Sen, President of the Senate and former Prime Minister, and the wife of Prime Minister Hun Manet. However, international fact-checking organizations such as AFP Fact Check and Fact Crescendo investigated and revealed that the photograph depicted a firefighting aircraft dropping fire retardant during wildfire operations in California in January 2025, completely unrelated to this conflict. The Royal Thai Air Force issued an official denial, confirming Thailand's unwavering commitment to the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC).

Cambodia created and shared fake news alleging Thailand sprayed toxic chemicals on Cambodian troops and civilians

The reality: Firefighting aircraft dropping fire retardant at Woodland Hills, LA, USA

The fact that high-ranking Cambodian leaders personally disseminated information proven to be false confirms that this information operation was not mere public misunderstanding, but originated from policy-level decisions.

The original context of the image used to create fake news can be verified via Reuters.

Questions That Demand Open Scrutiny

The facts outlined above clearly indicate that Cambodian forces engaged in shelling Thai civilian areas with unguided weaponry and spreading false information to cover up damages—actions that warrant serious international scrutiny. However, in fairness, the Cambodian side maintains that Thai forces initiated fire at certain clash points (such as Ta Muen Thom and Ta Krabey), and Fortify Rights explicitly stated it could not yet evaluate the legality of Thai military operations due to a lack of access to Cambodian territory.

Regardless of what an investigation yields, one principle remains indisputable: anyone who orders indiscriminate attacks against civilians, regardless of affiliation, must be held accountable under international humanitarian law.

---

Note: Fatality figures may show slight discrepancies across sources due to the rapidly evolving situation at the time of the incident.

References