Yes the BN is also ready.

You have also to be ready to defend/fend off BN’s main weapon for Sarawak – to leverage maximum on propaganda value of Carcosa sex video being concluded “authentic” by forensic experts, with investigation papers sent to AG per IGP (Malaysiakini).

Concerning PKR (Sivarasa)’s renewed calls in demanding that the police arrest the “Datuk T” for “pornography”, the Trio, who are obvious friends of the regime opposing regime change, can easily be defended by government (principal spokesman – Nazri).

On the argument whether the public showing of video is or is not pornography, the official stand taken will be that it is not.

The argument will be: it is pornography only if the intention of the Datuk T is to make financial profit from the public showing of the video but it is not if it is in service of public interest if not national interest, to expose an issue of great public importance concerning moral character of a popular Opposition politician who may otherwise one day lead the nation if the truth shown in the video were not shown!

On the argument of fatigue – and the authenticity of the video or otherwise being used to distract as a red herring Pakatan Rakyat (PR) from its electoral campaign in Sarawak – the Barisan National will tell the electors/voters (not only in Sarawak’s but the GE) the following:-

1. PR’s refusal to use forensics to discredit Govt’s version is an indication that PR does not want to confront the truth about the authenticity of the video and what it shows.

Re Godfather’s posting in #14.

///to divert us from the real and more important issue at hand – the Sarawak elections/// – In terms of what’s at stake Sarawak’s state elections is but battle but the GE is the War.

///First, there is no “Govt’s version”. There is only the Datuk T version, which we know is UMNO’s version/// – It is government’s version because the IGP says the video is authentic backed by local forensic experts. Therefore to rebut local forensics that is of suspect independence, one has to resort to foreign independent ones.

///Second, PR has never refused to use forensics///. – So far PR has not said it will use that either. In fact it is dismissive of RCI.

///It’s just that PR will not support anything that makes a mockery of the “guilty until proven innocent” doctrine of UMNO./// – If forensics were resorted to in “innocent until proven guilty” doctrine, more so it should be used to counter “guilty until proven innocent” doctrine.
///When the time comes, i.e. when UMNO decides that it is indeed Anwar in the video, and that therefore they bring charges against Anwar for making a false police report, then -and only then – will forensics come into play///. – They are interested in charging Anwar. They are only interested in discrediting his moral position. If you wait for the day he is to be charged – to get forensics – you’ll wait forever and meanwhile his standing will be tarnished for lack o scientific evidence to rebut the purported one tendered by UMNO/Govt.

Re posting #16. It does not help you dismiss what I say as stunt. The question you should think is whether what I say will be raised in both Sarawak & GE at PR’s great cost.

Sorry, typo omission in #19 – “….They are NOT interested in charging Anwar… They are only interested in discrediting his moral position (s leader of nation)…”

I meant “doctored” or not “doctored” in general non technical sense of it being established – not by yours nd mine naked eye- but by those who are experts in such analysis to establish whether (1) the video hs been tampered and (2) if not whether the actor in it is the political personality that it purports to show, having regard to the actor’s movments body structure and behavorial trait.

Lim Kam Put, as usual, you misinterpret your prejudice for principles and instead of addressing issues objectively and dispassionately, you have penchant to make uncalled for innuendoes (eg “agent of diversion” and “but if the principle is compromised”) on personal basis, behaving no matter than those UMNO guys you so criticise as being intelllectually bankrupt.

Your comment ( aimed at attacking the messenger than grappling with the message) therefore is a frequent low that admits no rational engagement and your chain of reasoning (judging from hypotheticals you raise) is such that you would have served your own higher interest had you exercised the right to remain silent (against self incimination) instead of leaving behind the stain of such comment.

Deal with facts not hypothetical(s)
The hypothetical “do you think this government will let it drags on? By now, the video would have been made available to the whole world and probably anwar hauled up to the syariah court” is useless. Its reasoning does not show anything. Who knows its not their intention to haul him in Syariah Court. Its just to discredit his moral position as a leader. On making it available for the whole world does the govt need to do this to achieve its objective of discrediting him in eyes of domestic constituency? Can a govt be seen making available such a video even if authentic for whole world to see? How by loading it in YouTube?

If one of the Trio (Datuk T) were also in the video, can one raise a hypothetical question along these lines: “if the actor were not really the Opposition leader would one of the trio entrapping him, risk his own reputation and pay the reputational price by being also seen in the same controversial video as the opposition leader? – therefore this shows the video is authentic.”

See how how another 2nd hypothethical can be spun around to reach a different conclusion from the first hypothetical. But isn’t vthis nonsense?

Hypotheticals are hypotheticals. By nature it is intellectually dishonest to use a hypothetical and reason from it to try prove or disprove a fact.

The first hypothetical (the govt dragging the issue, not exposing for now to world or filing charge in Syariah Court) by Lim Kam Put no more proves the likelihood of the actor not being the opposition leader than my second hypothetical (proceeding on the assumption that one of the trio in the same video and therefore would not risk being there if its not true) could prove that the actor is indeed the opposition leader alleged. And the reason for that is that both hypotheticals proceed on premises that allow alternative explanations than necessarily the conclusion that one who raises the hypothetical, seeks or desires, by raising it, to draw.

Now who is smug? Your response you don’t even grasp the absurdity of your hypothical nor even appreciate the fact it is the govt that chooses how and when to capitalise, which is premature at this stage to say they will not do so. Don’t bother to respond. I am not interested to read argument for sake for argument.

Well now, if Teoh Beng Hock’s RCI chairman James Foong knows that even esteemed supporters of the Opposition and contributors to this blog find pleasurable distraction in viewing sex video (provided it’s the better quality ones), he would at least have an understanding/perspective of this quite common past time in this so-called country of gutter politics and not express so much shock about the RCI special investigator (Michael Leslie Squire)’s report that so far two MACC officers were discovered to have watched pornography in MACC headquarters at the time of TBH’s detention. (Ref: TheMalaysianInsider report by Boo Su-Lyn, April 02, 2011).