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 islamofascist Saudi dictator family spreading its islamist hate and losses over you

The islamofascist Saudi dictator family spreading its islamist hate and losses over you
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 the 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!

Myth vs Truth

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

Wednesday, December 10, 2014

Mothers of islamofascism


Muslim sharia mothers


British muslim sharia mothers Samantha Lewthwaite and Mishal Husain - and Michael Adebolajo, the British born muslim son of a Christian mother

                             Zubeidat Tsarnaeva and Majida Sarwar



Friends and neighbors said Zubeidat Tsarnaeva, the muslim mother of the muslim Boston marathon bombers, became increasingly radicalized in her islamic beliefs during her time in the US and continues to defend her muslim terrorist sons in public interviews, claiming that they were framed by the FBI.

If intent is criminalized then repent can not be used as a defense


Muslim UK terrorist's mother Majida Sarwar: My son is not a terrorist.

However, a note he had left her said he had gone to do jihad and fight the 'enemies of Allah' i.e. the "infidels" "kuffars" etc.

Yusuf Sarwar and his pal Mohammed Ahmed admitted in court to planning terrorist acts.

Judge Topolski: "In each of their cases their persistent commitment to terrorist activity, demonstrated over a significant period of time, their willingness to prepare for and travel abroad, receive training and cross into Syria to fight, leads me to believe they are sufficiently dangerous to pass an extended sentence."

Over 200,000 people have died in Syria since March 2011. Majida Sarwar's son spent a considerable time there with al-Qaeda's Nusra faction. What did he do during this time? And isn't it criminal enough to join a muslim terrorist organization?! Does the mother support al-Qaeda/Nusra?


Klevius: If intent is criminalized then repent can not be used as a defense. A criminal act may take the form of affirmative conduct or an omission to act, such as, for example, withholding information from the police - perhaps even just encouraging such an act. Doing an act tending and intended to pervert the course of public justice is an offense under the common law of England and Wales. This offense is also sometimes referred to as "attempting to pervert the course of justice". This muslim terrorist mother seems dangerously close to ticking most of the boxes.



Since April/May 2010:

    753 people have been arrested for terrorism-related offenses. 212 have been charged and 148 have been successfully prosecuted;
    138 people are behind bars serving sentences for terrorism-related offenses;
    13 people, including Abu Hamza, have been extradited after being accused or convicted of terrorism-related offenses;
    The Counter-Terrorism Internet Referral Unit has secured the removal of 65,000 items from the Internet that encouraged or glorified acts of terrorism. More than 46,000 of these have been removed since December, 2013. At present, content relating to Islamic State, Syria and Iraq represents around 70 per cent of the Unit’s caseload;
    The Home Secretary has excluded 61 people on national security grounds and 72 people because their presence would not have been conducive to the public good;
    She also has revoked the British citizenship of 27 people because their activities were not conducive to the public good; and
    74 organizations are at present proscribed by the UK government because they are engaged in or support terrorism.

Almost all of these terrorist acts are based on islam - the worst ideological crime ever against humanity throughout 1400 years!

Islam is the ideology behind most and worst torture!



Is this muslim terrorist Khalid Mohammed more lovable just because he was tortured?




Torture in Jordan - the most "moderate" muslim Arab state

The case of Abu Qatada


Adam Coogle, a Middle East and North Africa researcher at Human Rights Watch: The reasons the courts gave to support the legality of the confession, in both 1999 and 2014, were chiefly that the medical report performed on al-Khamaiseh following his detention in 1998 did not reveal injuries or bodily harm, and that it was given directly to the State Security Court (SSC) military prosecutor rather than officers of Jordan’s intelligence agency – the General Intelligence Directorate (GID), whom al-Khamaiseh accused of torturing him before he confessed.

These arguments are far from convincing. Human Rights Watch has documented the close relationship between the SSC military prosecutor and the GID – the former maintained an office inside the main GID headquarters at the time, and former detainees have told Human Rights Watch that officers move them back and forth between GID interrogators and prosecutors until the desired confession is obtained. Detainees also say that only doctors assigned to the GID performed their medical examinations, and they were refused independent medical exams while in detention. Judges in the Abu Qatada trial did not address these concerns, which were also shared by the European Court of Human Rights, in their verdict.

The State Security Court appears to have violated key procedural safeguards found in Jordan’s treaty with the UK, which stipulates that if there is “a real risk” that a statement was obtained through torture, it cannot not be admitted as trial evidence unless the prosecutor first proves “beyond any doubt” that it was not coerced. During Abu Qatada’s trial judges did not ask the military prosecutor to prove the legality of al-Khamaiseh’s confession prior to presenting it to the court, but rather accepted it into the record without question and ruled on its admissibility only at the end of the trial.

Perhaps most telling, the verdict states that al-Khamaiseh’s confession could not be disallowed, because previous 1999 rulings of the SSC and an appeals court had rendered its admissibility res judicata – a previously-decided matter that cannot be raised again in court. This seems to suggest that to the court, the UK-Jordan treaty has no impact whatsoever on what evidence was admitted in Abu Qatada’s case.

Ultimately, Abu Qatada was found not guilty because al-Khamaiseh’s confession was not supported by other statements or evidence, as required by Jordanian law. But the fact that the confession was admitted as evidence at all shows just how worthless the treaty really was. It’s clear that “diplomatic assurances” from countries with poor records on torture aren’t worth the paper they’re written on.


Torture in Saudi Arabia neglected by ECHR in Jones v. United Kingdom


By mixing up state responsibility with official immunity despite Draft Article 58’s clear warning not to do so the ECHR reached the conclusion that torture is an “official act” entitled to state immunity.








.

No comments: