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, June 20, 2016

When UK's top representative of islamofascist* sharia islam, Sayeeda Warsi, supports staying in EU - well, then you better leave!

* she supports Saudi based and steered OIC and its violations of the most basic of Human Rights.


When "islamophobia" and "xenophobia" is used by politicians you can be sure it's in reality a defense for sharia muslims, Saudi Arabia, OIC, etrc.

The problem isn't immigrants/refugees - the problem is sharia muslim immigrants/refugees who are against the most basic of Human REights!

Klevius 'easy to understand' tutorial on islamofascism and its supporters

Cameron has negotiated Britain out of the European Court of Human Rights, not because of any prisoners right to vote or problems sending back muslim terrorists, but because the court has ruled muslim sharia incompatible with Human Rights. Why did he do that? Simply because that would constitute an obstacle for making London a sharia center with full access to EU. For this purpose Saudi based and steered OIC consisting of 57 member states has become an important tool - no matter OIC (via its so called Cairo declaration of "islamic human rights" in UN) has declared the most basic of Human Rights as "blasphemic" against islam and its sharia.

European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) vs Saudi based and steered Organization of Islamic Cooperation (/OIC) and its sharia declaration AGAINST Human Rights in UN:


The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in 2001 decided that, when campaigning for changes in legislation or to the legal or constitutional structures of the State, political parties continued to enjoy the protection of the provisions of the Convention and of Article 11 in particular provided they complied with two conditions:

1 the means used to those ends had to be lawful and democratic from all standpoints and

2 the proposed changes had to be compatible with fundamental democratic principles. It necessarily followed that political parties whose leaders incited others to use violence and/or supported political aims that were inconsistent with one or more rules of democracy or sought the destruction of democracy and the suppression of the rights and freedoms it recognised could not rely on the Convention to protect them from sanctions imposed as a result.

The Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) is not related to the European Court of Human Rights. However, since all EU states are members of the Council of Europe and have signed the Convention on Human Rights, there are concerns about consistency in case law between the two courts. The ECJ refers to the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights and treats the Convention on Human Rights as though it was part of the EU's legal system, since it forms part of the legal principles of the EU member states. Even though its member states are party to the Convention, the European Union itself is not a party, as it did not have competence to do so under previous treaties. However, EU institutions are bound under article 6 of the EU Treaty of Nice to respect human rights under the Convention. Furthermore, since the Treaty of Lisbon took effect on 1 December 2009, the EU is expected to sign the Convention. This would mean that the Court of Justice is bound by the judicial precedents of the Court of Human Rights's case law and thus be subject to its human rights law, avoiding issues of conflicting case law between these two courts.

However, in an opinion issued in December 2014 by the ECJ it rejected the accession to the European Court of Human Rights in Opinion 2/13.

EU seems to have evolved into a muslim sharia project steered from Saudi Arabia and Turkey via OIC. Such development will inevitably Mideasternize EU even more and to an extent that will be more like Iraq, Syria etc. in the future.

Whereas Mideast and many other muslimified countries have the highest birth rate and the lowest productivity, China has the world's biggest productive population, lowest birth rate and Russia the world's largest territories. However, these two countries and their citizens get negative media whereas muslim countries are almost always painted positive.


What motivated the muslim mass murderer in Orlando, Florida?


CNN: During the standoff, Mateen called 911 to pledge allegiance to the Islamic State. He also mentioned the Boston Marathon bombers.
But that's confusing because Mateen also claimed connections to other extremists groups, some of which are considered enemies and rivals of Islamic State.
FBI agents first interviewed Mateen in 2013 after co-workers reported he'd made "inflammatory and contradictory" comments about terrorism. He admitted making the remarks but said he was angry because his co-workers were teasing him because he was Muslim.

Klevius remark: As usual when CNN (or BBC) wants to put forward a certain bias they cherry pick someone who says "the right thing". This is why Klevius didn't even bother to repeat the name used by CNN in the above.

Pamela Geller:

Omar Mateen cheered 9/11.
Omar Mateen wore the kefiyah, the islamic scarf of war and Jew-hatred.
Omar Mateen pledged allegiance to the islamic State.
Omar Mateen was “quite religious.”
Omar Mateen beat his wife, in accord with the laws of the sharia (Islamic law).
Omar Mateen traveled to Saudi Arabia ….twice.
Omar Mateen threatened to shoot his classmate at a cookout over over pork meat (haram).
Omar Mateen “studied” jihad at an “Islamic center” run by a convicted imam who recruited for jihad slaughter.
Omar Mateen is claimed one of ISIS “lions of the caliphate.”
Because Omar Mateen posted to Facebook on June 12, 2016: “I pledge my alliance to abu bakr al Baghdadi..may Allah accept me.”  “The real muslims will never accept the filthy ways of the west”; “taste the Islamic state vengeance.” In a final post, Mateen apparently wrote, “In the next few days you will see attacks from the Islamic state in the usa.”

Why?
Because Muhammad commanded Muslims to put gays to death. Mateen thought that to kill a large number of gays during Ramadan would get him a great reward from Allah.
Because Obama’s FBI purged its counter terror materials and program of jihad.
Because the Department of Homeland Security was prohibited from using words like jihad and sharia.
Because one of the three FBI investigations into Mateen was dropped after he claimed his co-workers were islamophobic.
Because FBI Director Comey is “confused” as to jihadi Mateen’s motivations.
Because the ACLU and leftists elites blame the GOP for the jihad slaughter.
Because Disney reported Mateen and his wife to the authorities for “casing Disneyland” and suspicious behavior, but the FBI did nothing, not wanting to appear islamophobic.
Because a gun shop reported “suspicious” Omar Mateen to authorities, but they did nothing for fear of appearing “islamophobic.”
Because the left in media, academia, entertainment, and the U.S. government treat Muslims like a protected class and deny the Islamic doctrine that inspires and fuels this holy war.





Klevius wrote:

Wednesday, February 25, 2015

Sayeeda Warsi, UK's top official islamofascist* again spews islamic hatred on **BBC without anyone there questioning it!


* 'Islamofascist' is here defined as a muslim who supports the violation of the most basic Human Rights. Simple as that! If Sayeeda Warsi doesn't support sharia in this sense (e.g. OIC's sharia declaration) then she better come out as an apostate, i.e. committing the worst crime known to islam (which is already in itself the worst crime ever against humanity). 

** Using the hateful "islamphobia" against defender of Human Rights can only be classified as racist hate speech. Remember that "islamophobia" in sharia islam is synonymous with "blasphemy"!



Muslim Sayeeda Warsi, unelected "Minister for Faith islam", has stated that the UK is 'committed to working with the United Nations Human Rights Council to implement blasphemy resolution 16/18.' However, the majority of Brits don't have a clue about this because no one has informed them about it - especially not BBC whom even Klevius has beaten when it comes to informing about OIC.


Saudi based OIC - and its islamofascist Saudi sharia Fuhrer Iyad Madani - constitutes islam today, and it's against the most basic of Human Rights!


Sayeeda Warsi today on BBC: Islam forbids the killing of innocent people.

Klevius: Absolutely! And by "innocent" islam means the killers and those who support them! Either directly or by "being offended" (a term that should be read "islam's inferiority complex" against Human Rights). Those who didn't support Muhammad when he slaughtered all the Jews in Medina were not innocent according to the strongest part of islam, i.e. back then Muhammad's sword waiving muslim thugs, and today Warsi's beloved OIC which has criminalized the most basic of Human Rights and replaced them with muslim sharia.

Sayeeda Warsi today on BBC (about a gallup): British muslims felt more loyal to Britain and had a much bigger trust in institutions than white Britons.

Klevius: Absolutely! And it's appalling! And why shouldn't they when the institutions are made sharia compliant by the help of "diversity trained officials" who are scared to death to be called racist "islamophobes" or have already been exchanged to sharia muslim officials. And no one cares about muslim racism and hate crimes against the Brits.



No comments: