Lite Beer Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 Pheu Thai suggested no inferruption during the broadcast of censure debate By NUPPOL SUVANSOMBUT. BANGKOK, 13 March 2011 (NNT)-Pheu Thai Party Spokesperson Prompong Nopparit said his party stood ready to participate in the censure debate, adding that the Prime Minister and 9 other ministers would be targeted. Mr. Prompong, however, expressed his disagreement over the government’s plan to review the video clips regarding the political crackdown last year, claiming that it would give the Democrat Party time to prepare for the debate. He said he also feared that Democrat and Bhumi Jai Thai members could protest during the debate and asked Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and Interior Minister Mr. Chawarat Charnvirakul, the leader of Bhumi Jai Thai, to verify their motions. Mr. Prompong also proposed that the debate should be broadcasted without any interruptions to give the public full details of the debate. -- NNT 2011-03-13 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 What is an inferruption? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubl Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 (edited) What is an inferruption? In this case drop of receiving signal / broadcast is meant I think. May be we should also ask the U.N. for a 'no-flight' zone ? Edited March 13, 2011 by rubl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buchholz Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 (edited) They don't want any of their doctored videos to be previewed for authenticity as they feel it's their "right" to show adulterated and faked videos unhindered. Similar to their doctored audiotapes that they broadcast to their faithful at Red Shirt Rallies... it's all about doing so now with a national audience on television. Disclaimer: If they're not faked/doctored/etc., then they should not have any qualms about someone previewing them. . Edited March 13, 2011 by Buchholz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubl Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 They don't want any of their doctored videos to be previewed for authenticity as they feel it's their "right" to show adulterated and faked videos unhindered. Similar to their doctored audiotapes that they broadcast to their faithful at Red Shirt Rallies... it's all about doing so now with a national audience on television. Disclaimer: If they're not faked/doctored/etc., then they should not have any qualms about someone previewing them. Political one-upmanship plays a role here. To be fair, you might add 'Disclaimer: If they're not faked/doctored/etc., then I will apologize for thinking so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buchholz Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 (edited) They don't want any of their doctored videos to be previewed for authenticity as they feel it's their "right" to show adulterated and faked videos unhindered. Similar to their doctored audiotapes that they broadcast to their faithful at Red Shirt Rallies... it's all about doing so now with a national audience on television. Disclaimer: If they're not faked/doctored/etc., then they should not have any qualms about someone previewing them. Political one-upmanship plays a role here. To be fair, you might add 'Disclaimer: If they're not faked/doctored/etc., then I will apologize for thinking so. To be fair, I'll add apology for being wrong. As for apologizing for thinking so, I don't think so. It's just thinking predicated on their past numerous "indiscretions" when it comes to audio or videotape or oral announcements. Nothing outlandish about supposing they would repeat something they've done several times previous. . Edited March 13, 2011 by Buchholz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emptyset Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 They don't want any of their doctored videos to be previewed for authenticity as they feel it's their "right" to show adulterated and faked videos unhindered. Similar to their doctored audiotapes that they broadcast to their faithful at Red Shirt Rallies... it's all about doing so now with a national audience on television. Disclaimer: If they're not faked/doctored/etc., then they should not have any qualms about someone previewing them. . Weren't they previewed the other day? Sirichok claimed that they show "nothing new". Well, they'll be new to me since I haven't seen any videos that show the armed men inside Central World (if that's what they show, which is apparently the case). Matichon Weekly's cover this week: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buchholz Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 (edited) They don't want any of their doctored videos to be previewed for authenticity as they feel it's their "right" to show adulterated and faked videos unhindered. Similar to their doctored audiotapes that they broadcast to their faithful at Red Shirt Rallies... it's all about doing so now with a national audience on television. Disclaimer: If they're not faked/doctored/etc., then they should not have any qualms about someone previewing them. . Weren't they previewed the other day? Sirichok claimed that they show "nothing new". Well, they'll be new to me since I haven't seen any videos that show the armed men inside Central World (if that's what they show, which is apparently the case). Matichon Weekly's cover this week: So then, what is Prompong on about not wanting to let anyone see them? edit: Nevermind, I think I just figured out what inferruption means. . Edited March 13, 2011 by Buchholz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emptyset Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 So then, what is Prompong on about not wanting to let anyone see them? edit: Nevermind, I think I just figured out what inferruption means. . Whoops, don't know. Here's the article: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2011/03/11/national/Oppositions-tapes-on-riots-show-nothing-new-Sirich-30150628.html - he sounds like he's seen them but maybe he hasn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubl Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 Weren't they previewed the other day? Sirichok claimed that they show "nothing new". Well, they'll be new to me since I haven't seen any videos that show the armed men inside Central World (if that's what they show, which is apparently the case). Matichon Weekly's cover this week: Have to wait and see of course, but wouldn't surprise me the CWT clips will be similar to the photo's which were described begin of December last year. Conclusions: "The photographs show that were at least three groups of people inside CTW in the hours just before the fire: (1) small numbers of protesters, who may have been looting; (2) CTW security guards, who apparently fled the mall after being fired at; and (3) unseen gunmen. Whether there was more than one group of gunmen, and whether the same gunmen shot the security guards in Photos 15-28 and the protester with the slingshot in Photo 9 (if he was indeed shot), we simply do not know based on these photographs. The photographs also show at least three different sources of apparent gunfire: (1) unseen shooter(s) inside CTW, who fired upon security guards and possibly fired at a protester; (2) unseen shooter(s) located near the northeast corner of Siam Paragon; and (3) unseen shooter(s) on the west side of Siam Paragon, possibly connected to the camouflaged man in the ski mask photographed on the Siam BTS platform. As discussed above, the photographer was almost certainly a security guard for CTW. This raises an important question: Have the security guards from inside the mall been questioned as to what they saw at CTW before the fire? Many faces can be clearly seen. No doubt they saw more than was photographed here. Will any journalists step up and track down these witnesses?" http://asiancorrespondent.com/43506/photos-from-may-19-an-update/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sillybilly Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 Sorry this is probably a silly question but will there be a way for us falang to follow this Censure Debate?? Or will it only be broadcast in Thai?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubl Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 Sorry this is probably a silly question but will there be a way for us falang to follow this Censure Debate?? Or will it only be broadcast in Thai?? Probably broadcasted life on one of the Thai channels, in Thai of course. No English subtitles I'm afraid, not even Dutch Some people on twitter may post snippets in English, try @tulsathit (works for the Nation), or @terryfrd (works for the other newspaper) Be careful watching all 40+20+6 hours is really bad for your health Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sillybilly Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 I`m sure the answer is obvious but once these elections are over what do we think Thaksin is going to do next should the reds lose this election? Are they going to just keep protesting again and again asking for another election or claim there is going to be another coup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 Have to wait and see of course, but wouldn't surprise me the CWT clips will be similar to the photo's which were described begin of December last year. Conclusions: "The photographs show that were at least three groups of people inside CTW in the hours just before the fire: (1) small numbers of protesters, who may have been looting; (2) CTW security guards, who apparently fled the mall after being fired at; and (3) unseen gunmen. Whether there was more than one group of gunmen, and whether the same gunmen shot the security guards in Photos 15-28 and the protester with the slingshot in Photo 9 (if he was indeed shot), we simply do not know based on these photographs. The photographs also show at least three different sources of apparent gunfire: (1) unseen shooter(s) inside CTW, who fired upon security guards and possibly fired at a protester; (2) unseen shooter(s) located near the northeast corner of Siam Paragon; and (3) unseen shooter(s) on the west side of Siam Paragon, possibly connected to the camouflaged man in the ski mask photographed on the Siam BTS platform. As discussed above, the photographer was almost certainly a security guard for CTW. This raises an important question: Have the security guards from inside the mall been questioned as to what they saw at CTW before the fire? Many faces can be clearly seen. No doubt they saw more than was photographed here. Will any journalists step up and track down these witnesses?" http://asiancorrespo...y-19-an-update/ The unseen shooters inside CWT "must have been army, because they shot people in the leg" ... according to one pro-red poster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buchholz Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 They don't want any of their doctored videos to be previewed for authenticity as they feel it's their "right" to show adulterated and faked videos unhindered. Similar to their doctored audiotapes that they broadcast to their faithful at Red Shirt Rallies... it's all about doing so now with a national audience on television. Disclaimer: If they're not faked/doctored/etc., then they should not have any qualms about someone previewing them. Government Set to Counter Opposition's Censure Attacks The deputy prime minister in charge of national security has expressed concern over tomorrow's censure debate as the Opposition is believed to present an edited video which may cause misunderstanding among the public. He says the government is prepared to clarify any distorted facts. Deputy Prime Minister in charge of national security and the Democrat Party secretary general Suthep Thaugsuban admitted that he is concerned about tomorrow's grilling because the Opposition has reportedly planned to screen an edited video that could possibly distort facts and cause misunderstanding among the public. Suthep is trying to gather necessary information and facts in order to clarify the situation to the public to the best of his ability. -- Tan Network 2011-03-14 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now