Deluded Not Holy Men:

Quote: Millions of Hindus take holy bath in Ganges.
Thousands of Hindu holy men began the plunge near the town of Allahabad at dawn.
Pilgrims believe that bathing at the confluence of three of Hinduism's holiest rivers washes away their sins. The new moon night, or Mauni Amavasya, is celebrated on Friday, making it the most auspicious day in the six-week-long festival.
"The planetary alignment is such that sun rays, when they fall on the Ganges, turn the river water into nectar. So bathing here today is equivalent to drinking nectar," he says.

What they are doing is not only false but they are deluded and headed for perdition.
The Buddha:
Bahuka and Adhikakka, Gaya and Sundarika,Payaga and Sarassati, And the stream Bahumati -- A fool may there forever bathe, Yet will not purify his black deeds.
What can Sundarika bring to pass?What can the Payaga and the Bahuka?They cannot purify an evil-doer,A man performing brutal and cruel acts.
One pure in heart has evermoreThe Feast of Cleansing and the Holy Day; One pure in heart who does good deedsHas his observances perfect for all times.
It is here, O brahmin, that you should batheTo make yourself a safe refuge for all beings.And if you speak no untruth,Nor work any harm for breathing things,
Nor take what is not offered,With faith and with no avarice,To Gaya gone, what would it do for you?Let any well your Gaya be!

It is not bathing in the holy river that makes that day auspicious but you truly have an auspicious day as the Buddha described below:

Bhaddekaratta Sutta: An Auspicious Day
The Blessed One said: "Monks, I will teach you the summary & exposition of one who has had an auspicious day."
The Blessed One said:
One would not chase after the past,nor place expectations on the future.What is past is left behind.The future is as yet unreached.Whatever quality (things worthy of attention) is present (at the moment)one clearly sees right there,right there.Unvanquished, unshaken,that's how one develops the mind.
Ardently doing one's duty today,for -- who knows? -- tomorrow death may come.There is no bargainingwith Death & his mighty horde.
Whoever lives thus ardently,relentlessly both day & night,has truly had an auspicious day:So says the Peaceful Sage.
"And how does one chase after the past? One gets carried away with the delight of 'In the past I had such a form (body)'... such a feeling'... such a perception'... such a thought-fabrication"... such a consciousness.' This is called chasing after the past.
"And how does one place expectations on the future? One gets carried away with the delight of 'In the future I might have such a form (body)'... such a feeling'... such a perception'....
"And how is one not vanquished with regard to present qualities? There is the case where one who is versed in the teachings, well-trained, does not see form as self, or self as possessing form, or form as in self, or self as in form.
"He/she does not see feeling as self, or self as possessing feeling, or feeling as in self, or self as in feeling.
"He/she does not see perception as self…...
"He/she does not see thought-fabrications as self….
"He/she does not see consciousness as self, or self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in self, or self as in consciousness. This is called not being vanquished with regard to present qualities.

Police’s Monumental Blunder Or Faux Pas:
From what I gather, the authorities are adamant that only Razak & the two policemen are involved.
(Surely unless you have brought all to account, you have established the prime aim of prosecution, which must be who ordered not abetted the killing or you have tried your best and failed and declared publicly you failed should you then reluctantly charge these lesser three in court? Therefore the fact that charges have been brought against these three so rapidly must indicate police have decided they are the only ones involved or they have reasons that they will not divulge to stop further prosecution)
If it is true that Razak did not order but only abetted the murder as charged and the policemen did not commit murder by themselves or ordered it themselves, then there must be a fourth person who ordered the murder because a murder cannot be committed spontaneously without someone ordering it.
If the police have established DEFINITELY that no one else is involved, Razak must be the one who ordered and he should be charged with ordering rather than abetting. Any murder mandates someone who ordered and someone who executes whilst an abettor is an option.
How did the police establish or why are they so confident that Razak should only be charged with abetting and not ordering the murder unless they know who ordered the murder? For instance, if the policemen had confessed who ordered the murder then of course police know who ordered and this is the reason why they are so confident as to charge Razak only with abetting. If police do not know with certainty, they have not established who ordered the murder, how can they charge Razak with only abetting? How can they not charge Razak with ordering when there are no others involved as they insist and all murders must have an instigator?
IF ONLY THESE THREE ARE INVOLVED AND RAZAK MERELY ABETTED OR ASSISTED THE MURDER AS CHARGED, WHO ORDERED THE KILLING? YOU MEAN THE POLICEMEN BOTH ORDERED AND EXECUTED THE MURDER OR THIS MURDER HAPPENED SPONTANEOUSLY WITHOUT ANY ONE ORDERING AND RAZAK MERELY ABETTED THEM?
THUS IN DECLARING ONLY THREE ARE INVOLVED AND CHARGING RAZAK ONLY WITH ABETTING, THE AUTHORITIES MAY HAVE COMMITTED A FAUX PAS OR MONUMENTAL BUNGLE AND IT APPEARS THAT EVERYONE INVOLVED INCLUDING PROFESSIONALS ARE NONPLUSSED OR AT LOSS AT THIS PREPOSTEROUS SITUATION.
HOW COME NO ONE, EVEN THOSE WHO ARE PROFESSIONAL INVOLVED IN THIS CASE HAS NOT POINTED OUT THIS FUNDAMENTAL ABSURDITY THAT CANNOT BE REFUTED THAT EXPOSES THE AUTHORITIES AS NOT COMING TOTALLY CLEAN?
WHY IS THE POLICE SO RELUCTANT TO CHARGE RAZAK WITH ORDERING THE MURDER? IS IT BECAUSE THE TWO POLICEMEN HAVE CONFESSED WHO ORDERED AND THEY KNOW WHO ORDERED AND ORDERING CARRIES A MANDATORY DEATH SENTENCE FOR RAZAK IF CONVICTED?
THUS THE PERSON OF DISCERNMENT ARMED WITH REASON CAN WORK OUT THE TRUTH IN ANY SITUATION. IT DOES NOT MATTER IF THERE IS A MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE BECAUSE WHAT FOOLISH PEOPLE DO NOT REALIZE IS THAT JUST AS YOU EXIST NOW IT IS POSSIBLE FOR YOU TO EXIST AFTER YOU DIE IN HELL, THE ANIMAL WORLD, AS GHOSTS OR IN HEAVEN, THERE IS GOD AND HE SEES AND KNOWS ALL (ACCORDING TO THE BUDDHA & JESUS), DIVINE PUNISHMENT IS FAR MORE PAINFUL AND EVERLASTING THAN HUMAN JUSTICE.
(Jesus said the counselor will convince you of sin, righteousness and judgment. Am I not convincing you of sin here and elsewhere as no man has done?)
A Far Fetched Affidavit:
The affidavit produced by Abdul Razak’s lawyers may have unwittingly ‘shot him in the foot’, although its implications may escape the public, judge and prosecution who cannot connect the dots.
What the affidavit admits is that Razak had an affair with Altantuya and she has become a nuisance to him by demanding money and blackmailing him such that he wanted the matter resolved in manner he did not specify but the judge presumptuously stated as ‘get rid of her’. In the affidavit Razak said he only asked Azila to arrange patrols around the house and told him not to do anything untoward against Altantuya. If any such thing were to happen to her, her family will look for me.
When harassed by Altantuya, Razak did not go directly to the police but sought the help of a contact, DSP Musa who recommended C/Insp Azilah (one of the two accused and reported Najib’s bodyguard).
Quote: On the morning of Oct 18, C/Insp Azilah called Razak and told him that he had killed six or more people before and therefore could help him stop the harassment.
THE ADMISSION THAT AZILAH BOASTED ABOUT HAVING KILLED SIX OR MORE PEOPLE AND THEREFORE COULD HELP RAZAK STOP THE HARRASSMENT MAY BE A FACT BUT ONLY A SELF SERVING HALF OF THE STORY OF WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED THAT IS INTENDED TO CAST AZILAH IN BAD LIGHT AND THE FULL STORY MAY BE THAT AZILAH SAID THAT IN THE CONTEXT OF A REQUEST TO HIM THAT HAS BEEN CONVENIENTLY LEFT OUT TO GET RID OF ALTANTUYA, WHAT AZILAH SAID WAS TO ASSURE THAT HE WAS UP TO THE TASK.
DOES C/INSP AZILAH’S BOAST THAT HE HAS KILLED SIX OR MORE PEOPLE BEFORE SUGGEST SOME POLICE PERSONNEL WORKED AS HIRED EXTERMINATORS WHO USUALLY GET AWAY WITH IT?
The affidavit admits that Razak and Azilah were in contact in the few days that culminated in her disappearance in front of his house. When Azilah was informed that Altantuya had come to Razak’s house on 19th Oct, he instructed that she should be kept engaged to await his arrival with another policeman and woman all in plainclothes in an unmarked police car to take her away after which she was never seen again.
It may be just a coincidence or it may be another inadvertent eye opener that Razak should meet DSP Musa at the DPM’s office on official business the next day and Razak said he asked DSP Musa about what happened to Altantuya to which the latter said that Azila has not reported to him.
Are police personnel legally permitted to do police business in a private capacity as seems to have occurred in this case, doing things for Razak and taking Altantuya away in an unmarked police car without the police force’s knowledge?
If Razak did not order the policemen to kill Altantuya but they recklessly did what was uncalled for, then it is the policemen who should be solely charged with her murder not Razak, unless they falsely implicated him.
IT IS HARD TO BELIEVE THAT ON A MATTER OF SUCH IMPORTANCE AS EXTERMINATING SOMEONE THAT APART FROM BEING GRUESOME, NEEDS CONSIDERABLE PLANNING TO CONCEAL FROM DETECTION AND LABOR & CAN HAVE DIRE CONSEQUENCES TO THEM IF THEY ARE CAUGHT THAT POLICE OFFICERS WHO ARE BODYGUARDS OF THE DPM AND THEREFORE SHOULD HAVE REASONABLE COMMON SENSE, DID NOT CLARIFY WITH RAZAK PRECISELY WHAT HE HAD IN MIND SHOULD BE DONE TO ALTANTUYA, THAT THEY SHOULD TAKE IT ON THEIR OWN INITIATIVE TO KILL HER AND DESTROY HER BODY BASED ON THE (IMPOSSIBLE) MISSIVE ‘GET RID OF HER BUT DON’T HARM HER’.
KILLING ANOTHER ON SOMEONE’S BEHEST IS NOT LIKE GOING OUT FOR DINNER BUT INVOLVES CONSIDERABLE PLANNING AND EFFORT TO CONCEAL IT FROM PUBLIC GAZE AT EVERY STAGE AND YOU ARE A FOOL IF YOU DID NOT THINK OF THE DIRE CONSEQUENCES OF DISCOVERY. HOW MANY PEOPLE WILL SIMPLY GO TO THE GREAT TROUBLE AND RISKS OF MURDERING ON BEHALF OF ANOTHER WITHOUT ASCERTAINING FOR SURE THAT IS THE REQUEST?
Unless the policemen inexplicably carried out the murder on their own, they must know who ordered them to kill and if they have stated who ordered the killing eg Razak, surely Razak should be charged with ORDERING the killing not ABETTING the killing. Why is Razak still charged with abetting when he obviously either directly or indirectly ordered the killing unless it was someone else who ordered the killing, and Razak is merely the scapegoat and therefore in a Freudian slip, the police stuck with a charge of abetment.
SINCE RAZAK BUT NOT THE POLICEMEN OR APPARENTLY ANYONE ELSE HAS ANY MOTIVE TO HAVE HER KILLED & HE HAS ADMITTED CONTACTING AND INSTRUCTING THE PERSONS IMPLICATED IN THE KILLING TO ‘DO SOMETHING TO HER’, HE SHOULD BE CHARGED WITH ORDERING RATHER THAN ABETTING. WHY ARE THE POLICE AVERSE TO CHARGE RAZAK WITH ORDERING BUT PREFER TO CHARGE HIM WITH ABETTING? IF RAZAK MERELY ABETTED, WHO ORDERED THE KILLING? SURELY IT IS MORE IMPORTANT TO BRING THE PERSON WHO ORDERED THE KILLING RATHER THAN THE ONE WHO ABETTED?
SURELY THE POLICEMEN KNOW WHO ORDERED THEM TO DO THE KILLING AND SO UNLESS THEY ARE PLEADING NOT GUILTY OR TAKING COMPLETE RESPONSIBILITY THEMSELVES IT MUST BE EASY ESTABLISHING WHO ORDERED THE KILLING. IF THESE POLICEMEN DID NOT KILL HER THEN WHAT DID THEY DO TO HER AFTER THEY TOOK HER AWAY FROM RAZAK’S HOUSE SO THAT SHE ENDED UP DEAD IN THAT MANNER?
IT APPEARS RAZAK IS UNUSUALLY READY TO CONCEDE THAT HE HAS AN AFFAIR WITH ALTANTUYA AND SO HE HAS MOTIVE TO HARM HER BUT HE DID NOT DO SO, HE ADMITS HE ENGAGED THE POLICEMEN INVOLVED BUT ONLY TO PATROL HIS HOUSE AND SPECIFICALLY TOLD THEM TO ‘GET RID OF HER’ WITHOUT HARMING HER, WHAT HAPPENED TO HER SUBSEQUENTLY IS THE FAULT OF THE POLICE OFFICERS. BY CONCEDING LIMITED LIABILITY, HE IS DIVERTING ATTENTION FROM THE PERSON WHO ORDERED THE MURDER IF HE EXISTS, THAT IS RAZAK IS OFFERING HIMSELF AS A SACRIFICIAL GOAT BUT ONLY TO A LIMITED EXTENT.
Excerpts of affidavit:
He employed P. Balasubramaniam (a private investigator) on Oct 16, but the harassment (by Altantuya) continued, so he sought out DSP Musa Safri, whom he had befriended through his work at the Malaysian Strategic Research Centre.
Razak said he asked DSP Musa to get police to patrol near his house for security reasons and the DSP introduced him to C/Insp Azilah Hatri.
On the morning of Oct 17, Altantuya came to see him at his house but his wife found out about it as he was not home.
“That night, there was a commotion outside my house and I immediately called DSP Musa. I also called the private investigator.
“Furthermore, DSP Musa had assured me that C/Insp Azilah would call me to help regarding the harassment,” he said.
“I told C/Insp Azilah not to do anything untoward against Altantuya. If any such thing were to happen to her, her family will look for me. I believe that as a police officer, he would not commit crime,” Razak said. (Razak carefully trying to distance himself from having ordered murder)
“I only asked him to get police to patrol around my house. I gave him my address and (that of) Hotel Malaya where the deceased was staying.”
The next day, on Oct 19, there was another commotion outside Razak’s house and he called C/Insp Azilah again.
“Azilah told me to ask my private investigator to continue talking to Altantuya until he arrived,” he said, adding that he again told C/Insp Azilah not to do anything untoward.
“Moments later, Azilah telephoned me and told me that he had arrived outside my house and that 'malam ini encik boleh tidur nyenyak (sir, tonight you shall sleep soundly) '.”
He said C/Insp Azilah, Kpl Sirul Azhar Umar and a policewoman then took Altantuya away in a police car.
Razak claimed that he had met DSP Musa at the Deputy Prime Minister’s office and asked what happened to Altantuya but DSP Musa said C/Insp Azilah did not update him.
Judge: Enough grounds to prove Razak abetted (or should it be ‘ordered’?) in murder
SHAH ALAM: A High Court judge found the events in Abdul Razak Baginda’s tell-all affidavit suggested his involvement in the murder of his Mongolian lover Altantuya Shaariibuu.
“The events clearly showed that there was enough grounds to prove that he abetted (why only abetted and not he ordered it when as the case appear to be, there is no one else who would benefit from her death or wanted her dead except Razak?) in the murder allegedly committed by two police personnel,” said Justice K.N. Segara.
Razak’s counsel Wong Kian Kheong read out the events on the morning of Oct 18 last year where Chief Insp Azilah called Razak and told him that he had killed six or more people before and therefore could help stop the harassment by the woman.
Wong (referring to affidavit and reading): I (Razak) told Chief Insp Azilah not to do anything untoward against Altantuya. If any such thing were to happen to her, her family will look for me. I believe that as a police officer, he would not commit a crime. I only asked him to get police to patrol around my house. I gave him my address and Hotel Malaya where the deceased was staying.
Judge: Whatever for did he give the address of the hotel to this man who said he had killed before? The relationship had ended in 2005 and suddenly, she is back in the picture in 2006. You don’t call the authority but a crime was committed after that.
Wong: The accused took Chief Insp Azilah as a police officer who can help.
Judge: Is your client an ordinary layman for you to give me such an answer?
Wong: My client did admonish Chief Insp Azilah.
Judge: Why call Azilah and not the police directly?
Wong: To protect the family.
Judge: This is your version but there are a lot of gaps. This is one man who claimed he had killed yet you went to him.
Wong: But the accused had admonished him.
Judge: Who is he to admonish a police officer? He had no right. Is he the boss of this person? Is he the IGP? These are questions that you cannot run away from answering.
Wong: He wanted Azilah to help him in a legal manner.
Judge: Come on, you expect the court to believe this? (He is mocking and that is unbecoming of a judge who should be unemotionally and deal with facts. Suffice to say “I do not believe”, the come on is derisive with karma attached). He has such a big establishment. He can just walk into the Brickfields police station and see someone. Anyway, I have not formed any conclusion about your client’s guilt. I am only questioning based on what is stated in the affidavit.
“The whole thing is here. He called the person to get rid of her. (Razak never said he wanted to get rid of her, the judge is speaking carelessly). No need to go any further in relation to abetment. The police officer is no longer helping him as a police. He is there in his personal capacity. This particular episode has flashed the entire abetment act.”
Justice Segara said that it was in this light that the court would look at the case.
“We will only know at the time of the trial when we hear all the other people’s versions. Then, we will know whether he had asked to kill or not. At the moment, he abetted in contacting Azilah, knowing very well that he had killed six people,” he said.
When counsel read out the next day’s events but skipped the part that Razak had gone to the Deputy Prime Minister’s office for official reason, Justice Segara said:
“Why did you skip that? There is nothing to worry. He just went there. It is in the affidavit. He should have known better and go straight to the police or IGP and not embarrass the DPM.
“Facts must surface. You cannot hide. The truth will always prevail.”
Wong then read out the omitted part. Here Razak claimed that he had met DSP Musa in the DPM’s office and asked what happened to Altantuya but DSP Musa said Chief Insp Azilah did not update him.
A few days later, Razak asked DSP Musa again and the latter gave the same answer as before.
This part of the affidavit, the judge said, was an attempt to drag people in and create embarrassment.
.
Questions regarding purchase of Sukhoi aircraft worth RM3.24 billion (Apparently written by Anwar Ibrahim)The purchase of 18 Sukhoi Su-30MK aircraft by the Ministry of Defence worth US$900 million (RM3.24 billion) raises serious questions on the integrity and transparency of the deal.The Ministry of Defence procured the aircraft from a Russian state company, Federal State Unitary Enterprise ‘Rosoboronexport’ on 19 May 2003. Part of the deal includes the RM90 million Malaysian space program.Under the deal, IMT Defence Sdn. Bhd. was appointed as the local agent for the Russian state company and was set to receive 12 percent (12%) of the total purchase price, worth US$108 million (RM380 million). In a letter dated 18 February 2004 from S. V. Chemezov, the First Deputy Director-General of the Russian state company, to the Minister of Defence, the Russian state company authorised former cabinet minister Datuk Seri Mohd Adib Adam as Chairman of IMT Defence Sdn. Bhd. to liaise with the Minister of Defence to facilitate the process.On 29 March 2005, Mohd Zainuri Mohd Idrus, a director for IMT Defence Sdn. Bhd., filed a suit and petition against Mega Heights Sdn. Bhd.; Integrated Manufacturing Technologies Sdn. Bhd.; Datuk Seri Mohd Adib; his son Ahmad Azam; his sister Askiah Adam (all directors of IMT Defence Sdn. Bhd.); as well as the company secretary for IMT Defence, Loke Foon Keng; and IMT Defence Sdn. Bhd. to prevent the company from sacking him from his position.In the hearing, Mohd Zainuri alleged that Datuk Seri Mohd Adib Adam and Askiah Adam wanted to prevent him from exposing the reality of the Sukhoi deal. He also alleged that he had lost faith in their ability to protect the interests of IMT Defence Sdn. Bhd.High Court Judge Siti Mariah Ahmad rejected separate applications from Datuk Seri Mohd Adib and Loke Foon Keng to dismiss the petition from Mohd Zainuri.However, in 2006, the Judge Siti Mariah Ahmad granted Datuk Seri Mohd Adib and Mega Heights Sdn. Bhd. leave to commence committal proceedings against Mohd Zainuri and his two lawyers for leaking the details of the Sukhoi deal. In December 2006, the Court allowed an application from Mohd Zainuri to strike off Askiah Adam as a defendant to the suit.On 30 September 2006, Mohd Zainuri lodged a police report (AMPANG/017696/06) at the Ampang District Police Headquarters alleging Datuk Seri Mohd Adib had stolen the US$108 million (RM 380 million) commission that was supposed to be channelled to the company.According to the report, Datuk Seri Mohd Adib had secretly registered a new company registered in Labuan bearing a name similar to IMT Defence Sdn. Bhd., allegedly in order to channel the commission illegally to the new company. The report was then sent to the Commercial Crime Investigations Department Headquarters.Malaysians have the right to know: What really transpired in the antics alleged by Mohd Zainuri in IMT Defence Sdn. Bhd.? Why haven’t the police or the Anti-Corruption Agency begun investigations on the allegations made in the police report? Why do we see a pattern of questionable agents being appointed in procurement deals worth billions of ringgit by the Ministry of Defence?Ultimately, we want to know: Who are the real beneficiaries of these dubious defence deals? Does it include as alleged, close family members of the Minister of Defence? ANWAR IBRAHIM16 January 2007
Affidavit Affirms Guilt That Must Be Greater Than Admitted:
Those who are guilty usually concede guilt that is lesser never more than reality (unless there is incentive), and therefore if Razak’s affidavit is implausible, his guilt must be greater and cannot be lesser than he contends.
And what did Razak contend in his (carefully but foolishly crafted) affidavit?
He acknowledged he had an affair with Altantuya but he only asked C/Insp Azilah to get police to patrol around his house and not to harm Altantuya.
Because it is not credible that a policeman who was only told to get police to patrol around his house (and nothing else, according to the affidavit) ended up murdering the woman, his role must be greater than that. Disposing of someone is not like going down a street to run an errant for someone, so without considerable financial inducement and specific instructions few if any will undertake murder on his own initiative or so casually, even if they think they can get away scot-free.
How feasible or what can regular police patrol achieve or is it likely cost effective for police to regularly patrol around his house when he already has his own guards?
THUS THE NETT EFFECT OF PRODUCING AN AFFIDAVIT THAT IS IMPLAUSIBLE IS TO CONFIRM BY THE HORSE’S MOUTH THAT HIS ROLE IN ALTANTUYA’S DEATH IS GREATER THAN JUST GETTING THE POLICE TO PATROL AROUND HIS HOUSE. IT DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEANS HE ORDERED THE MURDER FOR IT MAY STILL BE JUST ABETTING AS CHARGED BUT ABETTING TO A GREATER DEGREE.
ANWAR SPENT SIX YEARS IN PRISON FOR ABUSE OF POWER FOR ALLEGEDLY TRYING TO SUPPRESS INVESTIGATIONS INTO HIS HOMOSEXUAL CONDUCT. RAZAK HIMSELF HAS NO POWER TO ORDER A DELETION OF IMMIGRATION RECORDS (AS REPORTED BY ANWAR) AND TO GET BAIL FOR A NON BAILABLE OFFENCE. ARE THESE NOT ABUSE OF POWER BY UNKNOWN POWERFUL PEOPLE?
THE FACT THAT HE GOT BAIL FOR THIS SERIOUS OFFENCE (WHEN THE POLICE OFFICERS DID NOT) IS CLEAR INDICATION THAT THERE ARE POWERFUL PEOPLE BEHIND THE SCENES PULLING STRINGS AS BEST AS CAN TO ASSIST HIM AND THEREFORE THERE IS MORE TO THIS AFFAIR THAN MEETS THE EYE.
IF IT IS PURELY A PRIVATE MATTER OF AN ANALYST’S SEXUAL AFFAIR THAT WENT BADLY WRONG, WHY SHOULD IMMIGRATION RECORDS OF ALTANTUYA’S VISITS TO MALAYSIA BE SECRETLY DELETED? IS IT BECAUSE THE RECORD WILL BE TELLING? WITHOUT A POWERFUL PERSON PULLING STRINGS CAN THIS HAPPEN?