Is the islamofascist Saudi dictator "prince" Mohammad bin Salman the world's most dangerous man?

Is the islamofascist Saudi dictator "prince" Mohammad bin Salman the world's most dangerous man?
Is the islamofascist Saudi dictator "prince" Mohammad bin Salman the world's most dangerous man?

The Viking phenomenon started with bilingual Finns raiding/trading sex slaves to Abbasid (ca 750)

The islamofascist Saudi dictator family spreading its islamist hate and losses while FEEding Lnd

The islamofascist Saudi dictator family spreading its islamist hate and losses while FEEding Lnd
The islamofascist Saudi dictator family spreading its islamist hate and losses over you

How an organization of islamic crimes (OIC) violates Human Rights

Human Rights is diversity - sharia is the opposite

The evil of Sharia islam is what makes it incompatible with Negative Human Rights (i.e. why islamic OIC violates Human Rights by replacing them with Sharia, hence excluding women and non-muslims from equality). The evil of islam and its origin may be easier to grasp with historical examples, e.g. the Origin of Vikings.

It's racism and sexism even if proposed by a "god"! Klevius altruistic virtual volunteering for the world community in defense of Universal Human Rights . Yes, I know, it's unfair. Klevius vs islam, i.e. Universal Human Rights vs Sharia (OIC) racism/sexism! Of course Klevius will win. The question is just how long we should allow the dying beast to make people suffer. (Negative) Human Rights is not a ”Western” invention! It’s where you end up when you abandon racism and sexism, idiot! After you have abandoned islam! Your confused islamophilia and ignorance about Human Rights make YOU an accomplice to islam's crimes! Whereas Human Rights work as egalitarian and universal traffic rules (no matter who you are or what you drive you have the same rights as everyone else) islam/Sharia differs between muslim men and the rest (women and "infidels")!

Ask yourself, why can't racist islam (OIC) accept Human Rights? The answer reveals the difference between totalitarianism and freedom. And even if everyone converted to islam we'd still have Sharia sexism.
Have you noticed that when the history of slavery is (PC) debated islam is always excluded/excused? Atlantic slave trade and Roman slaves are eagerly mentioned while the world's by far worst, longest and most extensive one is blinked, as is the fact that islam not only sanctions slavery but is itself built on slavery and sex slavery (rapetivism)! The core idea of islam is the most thoroughly elaborated parasitism ever, i.e. what in 1400 yrs has made it the by far worst crime ever. But thanks to islamic teachings muslims are kept extremely ignorant about the evil origin of islam (institutionalized parasitism based on slave finance, rapetivism and pillage). Ohlig: The first two "islamic" centuries lie in the shadows of history. Klevius: There was no islam or islamic Mohammad (that's why the Saudis have levelled Mohammad's "grave" etc), only the evil murdering, pillaging and raping Aramaic-Arabic Jewish("Christian") led illiterate Arab thugs chasing for booty and sex. The "success" of this formula became later institutionalized and codified as a one way (Koran/Sharia) moral excuse (Allah) for further racist/sexist genocides. The bedrock and currency of this system was racist slavery. However, with Enlightenment the new idea of individual (negative) Human Rights emerged (incl. abolishing of slavery) and were, much later (1948), written down in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights according to which everyone is equal no matter of sex, beliefs etc. Just like in traffic! But unlike traffic rules no one really seems to care about guarding our most precious asset as human beings. Instead racist sexist islamofascism (OIC and the Cairo Sharia declaration) is protected by Human Rights while they strive to undermine and eventually destroy these Human Rights! And most people don't seem to get it. Always remember, there is no islam without Human Rights violating racist/sexist Sharia. So a "vote" for Sharia-islam is AGAINST democracy and the freedom part of Human Rights!

Sayeeda Warsi (UK's non-elected OIC/Sharia politician) in essence doesn't differ from those muslim Saudi women who approve of sex slavery etc, other than that she is either ignorant or a traitor (against democracy and Human Rights) of the worst kind.

We're all born unequal - that's why we need Human Rights, not islam!

Audi then built by Jewish slaves - today dangerous quality problems

Myth vs Truth

Japan's Hayabusa landed and returned to Earth many years before Europe's Rosetta failed to do so.

Monday, October 29, 2012

Are all muslims fanatics?


According to Turkey's PM Erdogan there is no such thing as moderate islam. So what about moderate muslims?

.

According to comedian Nick Revell on BBC, it's ok to joke about 'muslim fanatics' but not about all muslims.


However, to answer the question implied in Nick's strange choice of (PC) wording one needs first to conceptualize the definition of a muslim and a fanatic.

Were all Nazis fanatics or where exactly was the line separating the moderate Nazis whom comedians shouldn't joke about? I.e. what was the difference between fanatic Nazis and Nazi sympathizers?!


Compared to muslims Klevius seems less qualifjed as a fanatic. According to Meriam-Webster, a fanatic is:

A person filled with excessive and single-minded zeal, esp. for an extreme religious or political cause (Klevius isn't religious at all and his defense of Human Rights can hardly qualify as a political cause, can it. And single-minded is surely not the first that comes to mind for those who know him, quite the contrary. Klevius could do with some more focus).

A person with an obsessive interest in and enthusiasm for something, esp. an activity (again, Klevius could do with a lot more - but see Klevius defense for his inactivity).

Compared to fanatics Klevius is way too lazy and unfocused? So what about muslims and who is a muslim anyway?

One thing is clear, the muslims themselves have fought against each other for more than thousand years and continue to do so, just check the news.

However, today all muslims have a world covering caliphate, the Saudi based islamofascist OIC (that has taken over UN that was created to defend the free world vfom totalitarian ideologies) led by its Fuhrer Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu. But to qualify as a muslim you have to accept OIC's islamofascist, i.e. fanatic, Sharia which states that Human Rights ought to be violated whenever they differ from Sharia.

Klevius question to Nick Revell: If a totalitarian anti human rights movement that considers itself the final solution for the world, calls leaving its ideology the worst of crimes, says criticism against itself is equally evil as when muslim terrorists murder innocent people, demands sex apartheid etc etc, doesn't qualify as fanaticism then what does?!




 . ..

No comments: