I have no knowledge of anything: Najib

dia ikut cara bos dia=pak lah

boleh caya keh

Yah, dia taktahu apa-apapun, tetapi nak jadi perdana menteri.

Ahmad wrote:

Yah, dia taktahu apa-apapun, tetapi nak jadi perdana menteri.

hehe sarcastic remark, no offense man was just trying to chill my day only. But what you just said is so true...

Najib is INNOCENT ...

kesian Najib, GO NAJIB !!!

Anwar tukang FITNAH dan Liwat!

najib pembunuh dnegan cara membunuh orang.
mahatir membunuh dengan cara menfitnah orang.
najib wajahnya innocent tapi kelakuannya terkutuk.

Najib reminds me of Sargent Schultz in Hogan's Heroes. Schultz is a basically good-hearted man (and that might be a world of difference between Schultz and Najib) who, when confronted by evidence of the prisoners' covert activities, will simply look the other way, repeating “I hear nothing, I see nothing, I know nothing!” In Najib's case, the evidence relates to a crime that is worse than that of the prisoners' covert activities, but Najib's response is the same as that of good, old Sargent Schultz.

Crocker wrote:

Najib is INNOCENT ...
kesian Najib, GO NAJIB !!!
Anwar tukang FITNAH dan Liwat!

ko jangan fitnah orang yang sembahyang 5 waktu cukup kalau kao tak kenal betul dengan orang tu.....kao ada saksi ke nak tuduh2 orang meliwat!!!!!nanti mende tu balik kat kao baru tahu...

It is time for us to think through carefully all that has been happening. And let us think not on the basis of race or religion but on the basis of what is right and wrong. Take for instance the case of Saiful. Who is telling the truth? Now, in this case all three involved are Malay Muslims, but the question has nothing to do with whether they are Malays or Muslims or anything like that.

The basic question is: who is telling the rakyat the truth? Here the rakyat must consider the facts. In Saiful's case, we gather the following from the media:

According to Saiful's report to the police made on June 28, he was sodomized two days earlier http://newpaper.asia1.com.sg/news/story/0,413 ...). That means he was sodomized on June 26. However, according to Najib, Saiful went to see him (Najib) in his house because he (Saiful)was traumatized after being sodomized several days earlier (http://www.bernama.com.my/ber nama/v3/news.php?id=343750). Now, the phrase "several days" clearly means more than a two days. So Saiful was sodomized before June 26.

Are we therefore to infer that after Saiful was sodomized before June 26, he went to see Najib and then he went back to be sodomized again on June 26? If he went back to be sodomized for a second (at least) time after reporting the incident to Najib, what are we to think of that? Was he sent back to be sodomized again? If he was, who sent him back? If he wasn't sent back by someone then he must have gone voluntarily. In that case, isn't that then a case of consensual sodomy? If a man was raped once by another man before June 26, would he go back to that same person to be raped again on June 26? What is going on here? Who is telling the truth?

it is?