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.

Saturday, May 18, 2013

Obama's rape of Afgan girls/women


There's no "moderate" Sharia!



The worst ever US "president", muslim born (apostate?!) Barry Barakeh Hussein Obama Dunham Soetoro (or whatever) and his fashion and health occupied wife have both totally neglected girls/women's Human Rights in Afganistan. And quite understandable because giving girls/women full Human Rights would be a crime against islamic Sharia, i.e. a "crime" against islamofascism!




Rajiv Chandrasekaran: In Afghanistan, U.S. shifts strategy on women's rights as it eyes wider priorities. The Washington Post | March 6, 2011:

On March 6th, the Washington Post reported on a shift in the U.S. Agency for International Development's strategy towards gender issues in Afghanistan. The article features Ritu Sharma's argument that the new approach threatens to leave Afghan women behind.

When the U.S. Agency for International Development sought bids last March for a $140 million land reform program in Afghanistan, it insisted that the winning contractor meet specific goals to promote women's rights: The number of deeds granting women title had to increase by 50 percent; there would have to be regular media coverage on women's land rights; and teaching materials for secondary schools and universities would have to include material on women's rights.

Before the contract was awarded, USAID overhauled the initiative, stripping out those concrete targets. Now, the contractor only has to perform "a written evaluation of Afghan inheritance laws," assemble "summaries of input from women's groups" and draft amendments to the country's civil code.

The removal of specific women's rights requirements, which also took place in a $600 million municipal government program awarded last year, reflects a shift in USAID's approach in Afghanistan. Instead of setting ambitious goals to improve the status of Afghan women, the agency is tilting toward more attainable measures.

"If you're targeting an issue, you need to target it in a way you can achieve those objectives," said J. Alexander Their, director of USAID's Office of Afghanistan and Pakistan Affairs. "The women's issue is one where we need hardheaded realism. There are things we can do, and do well. But if we become unrealistic and overfocused . . . we get ourselves in trouble."

A senior U.S. official involved in Afghanistan policy said changes to the land program also stem from a desire at the top levels of the Obama administration to triage the war and focus on the overriding goal of ending the conflict.

"Gender issues are going to have to take a back seat to other priorities," said the senior official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal policy deliberations. "There's no way we can be successful if we maintain every special interest and pet project. All those pet rocks in our rucksack were taking us down."


Klevius May 18, 2013


There is no "moderate" or "fundamentalist" Sharia - only Human Rights violating Sharia. And the sooner the world is informed about this inevitable fact, the sooner muslim girls/women can be freed from islam.


Taliban friendly lawmakers in Afghanistan have now (May 2013) blocked legislation aimed to protect (some of) women's freedoms.

The legislation maintains Human Rights violating Sharia and lists the following objectives:

    1. Maintaining Sharia and legal rights and protecting the human dignity of women. 

    2. Protecting families and fighting against customs, traditions and practices causing

    violence against women and which are against Sharia.

    3. Protecting and supporting women who are victims of, or at risk of violence not allowed by Sharia.

    4. Prevention of violence against women that is not sanctioned by Sharia.

    5. Maintain public awareness and training on violence against women that is not sanctioned by Sharia.

    6. Prosecuting perpetrators of violence against women that is not sanctioned by Sharia.

However, Muslim legislators have objected to at least eight articles in the legislation, including maintaining the legal age for girls to marry at 16, providing shelters for domestic abuse victims, and limiting men to two wives.

The reason for this is that the original wording was made as a vague and treacherous compromise to satisfy Western demands while still keeping with much Sharia approaches.


Nawaz Sharif, Pakistan's Saudi steered islamofascist leader backs the Taliban


Pakistan is the Saudis' main road to islamize Afganistan in their favor.

However, according to a recent PEW study some 99% of the Afgans already want Sharia! 99%! That must include a lot of women. Makes me again think about girls'/women's positive approach/support to the muslim terrorist Dzhokhar Tsarnaev who murdered people in Boston because he was afraid that women would get their freedom in Afganistan and Iraq by the help of the West. But he was too worried. Obama had already decided to sacrifice muslim girls/women.













No comments: