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, January 23, 2016

After islam itself, its Saudi custodians are the most evil spreader and inciter of religious hate and sexism



And the reason is of course that the Saudi dictator family utilizes exactly those evil tenets that made islam "successful" in the first place.


There's no difference in coping with the Saudi dictator family as an ally than it would be coping with Nazi Germany, if it was still around. Except that this fascism is called religion.



Muslim supremacist hate against "infidels".


Islam in Sweden


Klevius: Is there any "community" other than muslim that harbors so much racist and sexist hate?


And the main evil behind this islamic incitement to hate comes from the "custodians of islam (and OIC)" i.e. the Saudi dictator family which our politicians (and BBC) keep telling us "is our best ally"!

Derek Ford, a scholar and professor, about recent developments regarding peace talks for Syria.


The following is a rough transcription of the interview.

Press TV: First of all, what do you make of the preconditions set by the Saudi-backed High Negotiations Committee for joining the peace talks?

Ford: I think that it should be interpreted as ultimately a gesture of bad faith and a way to delay the peace talks, because the Russian intervention in Syria at the request of the Syrian government beginning September 30 of last year has really irreversibly changed the dynamics of the conflict in Syria.

And I think that, ultimately, the strategy of the Syrian government in alliance with the Russian government and with Iran has been to win enough territory back and gain the military upper hand in order to be able to implement political solution, because ultimately that’s what is required.

However, that is of course directly at odds with the agenda of Saudi Arabia, which is to prolong the crisis, which is still to overthrow the government of Syria. And where the United States falls on that spectrum has wavered quite a bit over the last several years and continues to waver. It’s looking increasingly likely that the United States will accept that Syria cannot be given over wholesale to terrorist forces like the [so-called] Army of Islam.

Press TV: Mr. Ford, it’s been pretty much well-documented that the Russian airstrikes are targeting Daesh-held areas and Daesh terrorists. My question is why is the High Negotiations Committee focusing on the halting of Russian airstrikes when the United States is also at the head of a so-called coalition battling Daesh – in its own words – battling Daesh in Syria as well? Why do they want the Russian airstrikes to stop and not the US airstrikes to stop?

Ford: Yes, that’s the good question and ultimately I think that, you know, it’s important to understand that all the opposition in Syria are either Daesh forces, they’re al-Qaeda forces, with the al-Nusra Front, they’re the Army of Islam; there is no secular opposition, there is no progressive opposition. And so, the airstrikes against Daesh are airstrikes against the Syrian opposition.

Of course, the United States has been careful to not interfere too much with the relations that Turkey has with ISIL, with Daesh forces in the region. And so, to demand that there be a stop to Russian airstrikes is basically to demand that there be an end to the most effective campaign against Daesh forces in Syria.

Press TV: The United Nations Special Envoy to Syria, Mr. Staffan de Mistura, has accused Saudi Arabia of deliberately trying to undermine efforts for reaching a political solution. He has also said that Riyadh is complicating his efforts by trying to control which opposition groups are allowed to participate in the talks. This is pretty much along the lines of what you said of the Saudis having or expressing bad faith when it comes to trying to find a political solution to the crisis in Syria. Can you elaborate on that for us?

Ford: Yeah, so ultimately what’s happening is that Saudi Arabia, which funds the Army of Islam, which has at least a sort of implicit agreement with ISIL, wants to be able to hand-pick what “opposition forces” are at the negotiating table.

Of course Russia, Syria and Iran with quite good reason have reservations about that because you have... Not only is the Army of Islam a terrorist group, but Saudi Arabia wants to have at least three members that are affiliated with al-Qaeda on the negotiating team, which obviously is quite outrageous.

And then, Russia, in response, has requested that there be representatives of the Kurdish opposition on the opposition negotiation team. And this is an effort to introduce some moderate forces onto the opposition. And of course Saudi Arabia and Turkey are not happy with that.

And, so I think that basically it’s a struggle over who will control the composition of the opposition group, and will it be entirely Takfiri groups who are represented.










.

No comments: