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.

Tuesday, July 02, 2013

What difference between Erdogan and Morsi - except NATO and Western tech investments?!


The parasitic Turkish islamist Ottoman slave "empire" fell in misery and decay as a direct consequence of West's abolishment of slavery. However, now islamofascist Turkish fanatics like Ihsanoglu and Erdogan want to revitalize this disgusting islamic parenthesis, by the help of Sharia.

Turkey's islamofascist state consumes the cream of the cake while the rest goes mouldy




Sharia Erdogan orders all muslim women to produce at least three or more new muslims while Turkey's economy goes down


Rapetivism is a key pillar in islam. So for example, in China non-muslims are only allowed to have one child whereas there are no such restrictions for muslims in China. So why do only muslims have the Human Right to decide about their families while their "faith", because of Sharia, opposes Human Rights?!

Klevius questions: Do we really have too few young muslims on the planet? What is the unemployment rate among young muslims? And what when these young muslims become old?













OIC's islamofascist Sharia declaration concealed as "islamic human rights" within UN


By 1) using the the concept 'islamic human rights' (sic) instead of Sharia, and 2) by creating a Sharia zone within the UN, OIC has managed


We now live with a schizophrenic UN thatis based on Human Rights yet harbors its very opposite!

OIC, consisting of 57 more or less muslim member states, created the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in islam (Sharia). Article 24 states that "[a]ll the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the islamic Sharia" and Article 25 follows with "[t]he islamic Sharia is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification of any of the articles of this Declaration." Attempts to have it adopted by the United Nations Human Rights Council have met increasing criticism, because of its contradiction of the UDHR.

Critics of the CDHR state bluntly that it is “manipulation and hypocrisy,” “designed to dilute, if not altogether eliminate, civil and political rights protected by international law” and attempts to “circumvent these principles [of freedom and equality].”

According to Human Rights Watch OIC has “fought doggedly” and successfully within the United Nations Human Rights Council to shield states from criticism, except when it comes to criticism of Israel. For example, when independent experts reported violations of human rights in the 2006 Lebanon War, “state after state from the OIC took the floor to denounce the experts for daring to discuss Hezbollah as well.” OIC demands that the council “should work cooperatively with abusive governments rather than condemn them.” HRW responds that this works only with those who are willing to cooperate; others exploit the passivity.

The OIC has also been criticised for failing to discuss the treatment of ethnic minorities within member countries.

Along with the revisions of the OIC’s charter in 2008, the member states created the Independent Permanent Human Rights Commission (IPHRC).

The IPHRC has the power to monitor "human rights" (i.e. OIC's Sharia) within the member states and facilitates the integration of "human rights" (i.e. OIC's Sharia) into all OIC mandates. The IPHRC also "aids" in the promotion of political, civil, and economic rights in all member states.

LGBT rights are rejected by OIC as "licentious behaviour ... against the fundamental teachings of various religions, including islam".


Violent islamic jihad terrorism is, according to OIC, not terrorism


 OIC's definition of terrorism in article 1 describes “any act or threat of violence carried out with the aim of, among other things, imperiling people’s honour, occupying or seizing public or private property, or threatening the stability, territorial integrity, political unity or sovereignty of a state.” This is vague, ill-defined and including much that is outside the generally accepted understandings of the concept of terrorism. It is subjective and ambiguous and opens up for abusive use of terrorist prosecutions against political opponents and others. It also labels, or could easily be used to label, as terrorist actions, acts of peaceful expression, association, and assembly. Not to mention criticism against islam or its islamofascist leaders.

OIC doesn't recognise as terrorism acts that serve causes endorsed by their member states.

Not surprisingly contradictions between OIC's and other UN members' understanding of terrorism has stymied efforts at the UN to produce a comprehensive convention on international terrorism.

OIC also rejects any description of muslims attacking Israel as terrorism.


However, OIC calls non-violent defense of Human Rights "islamophobia" and "the worst form of terrorism" 


At the 34th Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers (ICFM), an OIC section, in May 2007, the foreign ministers termed islamophobia the worst form of terrorism.




No comments: