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 13, 2017

Klevius interference in the UK election: Brits! Stop the madness of Theresa May's pre-emptive nuke strikes against innocent civilians and defense of Saudi islamofascist sharia terror!


How did British politicians end up with the most disgusting of bed fellows?



"Prince"* Mohammed bin Salman, defence minister (i.e. Saudi war criminal) and favourite son of the current demented "king"*: The muslim community still thinks allowing women to drive will have negative consequences. He also says that [the woman] is not used to working. She needs more time to accustom herself to the idea of work. To this Klevius says that it's not women who aren't ready but islam - as a tool for Saudi islamofascism. The islamofascist Saudi dictator family sits on two pillars: Shrinking oil based assets, and original islam, i.e. the islam "interpretation" that keeps them in power. A democratic, "Westernized islam" that respects basic Human Rights would in no time shame the Saudi dictator  family. Without being the "custodians of islam" who export islam's original evilness to their worldwide jihadi, they would never be able to keep power as just one among other competing islamist dictators.

* The Saudi warrior dictator who copycatted the Brits by calling himself a "king", captured Mecca in 1924 and Medina in 1925 - i.e. he became a dictator "king" at a time when there were no such kings anymore in the West. Here's a timeline:

In 1891, The governor of The Ottomani Khilafah forced Abdul-Rahman and Al-Saud into exile. Al-Saud and the rest of the Wahhabi movement lived on the borders of the desert of the Empty Quarter (Al-Rebi’ Al-Khaali) before settling in Kuwait.

1892-1900, Abdul-Rahman died, and his son Abdul-Aziz Bin Abdul-Rahman and the rest of the Wahhabi movement lived in Kuwait.

Saudi King Abdul Aziz Ibn SaudIn 1901, Twenty-one-year-old Abdul Aziz Bin Abdul Rahman Al-Saud left Kuwait, determined to fight along-side the British forces against the Islamic state in order to get power over all of the territory once occupied by his pirate forefathers and to extend his occupation over the holy cities of Makkah and Medinah.

In 1902, The Exiled Abdul-Aziz Bin Abdul-Rahman Al-Saud and his gangsters (the Wahhabi movement) stormed Riyadh and shot and killed the Wali (the governor of the Khilafah:Aal-Rasheed) as another gift for Britain. This event marked the beginning of the formation of the pirate kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

1902-1913, After establishing Riyadh as his headquarters, Abdul Aziz proceeded, over the following decades side to side with the British soldiers to loot and kill the soldiers and supporters of The Ottomani Khilafah and he succeeded in many cities.

In 1914, Britain started to send a stream of agents (including William H.Shakespeare, Harry St. John Phil by and Percy Cox) to woo and encourage Abdul-Aziz Bin Abdul-Rahman in her task on the Arabian front. Abdul-Aziz Bin Abdul-Rahman’s campaign was one of sabotage and stabbing in the back, it was never face-to-face confrontation.

In 1915, Britain dispatched an agent by the name of William H. Shakespeare as a close advisor to Abdul-Aziz Bin Abdul-Rahman. The soldiers of the Khaleefah killed William alongside some Wahhabi conspirators.

In 1915, Britain dispatched another agent by the name of Harry St. John Philby, who soon appeared in full Arab dress on top of a camel with Abdul- Aziz Bin Abdul-Rahman as a saudi warrior. Philby was called by Abdul-Aziz Bin Abdul-Rahman the “new star of Arab firmament”. Philby in return described Abdul-Aziz Bin Abdul-Rahman as the Arabs “man of destiny” however Abdul-Aziz Bin Abdul-Rahman was the arch political sell-out, many times offering to sell himself to the British. He once said to Philby, “If anyone offered me a million pounds I would give him all the concessions he wants”.

In December 1915 the Anglo-Saud friendship treaty was concluded. This treaty made the house of Saud an outpost of the British Empire. Britain was given trading privileges and was superintendent of Saudi foreign policy. A guarantee of British military protection and arms supplies ended the Khaleefah’s authority in central Arabia.

In 1916, Abdul-Aziz Bin Abdul-Rahman received from the British 1300 guns, 10,000 rupees and 20,000 pieces of gold in cash.

1917-1926, Abdul-Aziz Bin Abdul-Rahman and his organised Wahhabi gangsters in military style and with the help of the British soldiers succeeded in controlling the Whole of Arabia i.e. Najd and Hijaz.

In On 8 January 1926 Abdul-Aziz Bin Abdul-Rahman ( Known as Ibn-Saud) was self-proclaimed king of Arabia. King Abdul-Aziz was embroiled in discussions with the British representative, Percy Cox, for the determination of the borders of the new entity. The British Public Records described king Abdul-Aziz’s demeaning stature at these meetings “like a naughty schoolboy” in front of Cox. When Cox insisted it was his decision as to the frontiers between Kuwait, “Ibn-Saud almost broke down and pathetically remarked that Sir Percy was like his father and mother who made him and raised him from nothing… and he would surrender half his Kingdom, nay the whole, if Sir Percy ordered. Cox took out a map and pencil and drew a line of the frontier of Arabia”. Surely no Muslim can ever read such a statement except with abject shame at the way the sacred sites of Makkah and Medinah and the land of Hijaaz were put in the hands of a family with such debased and dishonorable pedigree.

1926-1932, King Abdul Aziz Bin Abdul-Rahman (Ibn-Saud) courted the British unashamedly, showing sublime affection towards Britain’s envoys. He offered to put Arabia under their control. For his loyalty to the British crown, like so many other British agents, Ibn Saud was awarded a knighthood (presented to him by his self-proclaimed “father and mother” Percy Cox) and British

documents referred to him as “Sir” Abdul Aziz Bin Saud for many years afterwards.

In On September 23, 1932 the self appointed king, Sir Abdul-Aziz Bin Abdul-Rahman replaced the names of Najd and Hijaaz by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and he laid the foundations of the current Pirate state.


Islamic colonization of the free world space: Islamist terrorist attacks funded by the islamofascist Saudi dictator family's sponsoring of Salafi mosques, ideas etc.



Jeffrey Tayler: We are accustomed to reflexively deferring to “men of the cloth,” be they rabbis and priests or pastors and imams. In this we err, and err gravely. Those whose profession it is to spread misogynistic morals, debilitating sexual guilt, a hocus-pocus cosmogony, and tales of an enticing afterlife for which far too many are willing to die or kill, deserve the exact same “respect” we accord to shamans and sorcerers, alchemists and quacksalvers. Out of misguided notions of “tolerance,” we avert our critical gaze from the blatant absurdities — parting seas, spontaneously igniting shrubbery, foodstuffs raining from the sky, virgin parturitions, garrulous slithering reptiles, airborne ungulates — proliferating throughout their “holy books.” We suffer, in the age of space travel, quantum theory and DNA decoding, the ridiculous superstitious notion of “holy books.” And we countenance the nonsense term “islamophobia,” banishing those who forthrightly voice their disagreements with the seventh-century faith to the land of bigots and racists; indeed, the portmanteau vogue word’s second component connotes something just short of mental illness.








How can the islamofascist Saudi dictator family be "an important ally" against Saudi sponsored hate?



Klevius wrote:

Tuesday, July 19, 2016

Theresa May said she would authorize a nuclear strike killing 100,000s of innocent people. However, Klevius thinks that's insane - and for once shares Corbyn's view


Would it really be in the best interest of the Brits (and the Scots) to send little Britain's nukes somewhere in Russia, the world's biggest country, that has never shown any signs of using nukes for attacks?


Perhaps the UK Parliament should rethink its vote on Trident - just as some suggest the Brits should rethink their vote on Brexit.


1 Only one country, USA, has ever used nuclear weapons - and twice and mainly against innocent civilians in Japan.



2 "Terror balance" originated in the aftermath of WW2 and the US fear of a new totalitarian threat from the Communist Soviet Union (USSR), and a corresponding Communist will to world hegemony from the Kremlin, which saw the US (besides already Communist China) as its main remaining rival - and the one with the most powerful military potential. However, due to the geographical location of the US, USSR started developing missile technologies (for transporting nukes) to an extent that also resulted in the first man made satellite and the first man in space. As a result we ended up in a "terror balance" situation that in practice made it impossible for either centrally steered nation to ever "push the button" - not even at the so called Cuba crisis.

3 In the world of today the nuke scenario is completely different. Not only are conventional weapons both more effective and less wasteful with civilian casualties, they are also widespread and easily movable. The same could be said of modern nukes  - hence puncturing the deterrent argument.

4 The right to "push the button" is usually in one (or a few) human hands. The whereabout of that human is always uncertain - and would the killing of that human justify the lives of 100,000s of innicent?

5 The biggest nuke threat comes from islam, e.g. muslim Pakistan or muslim terrorists. Why? Simply because of the origin of islam, i.e. the Koran, Mohammad and the Hadiths that inspire islamic terror.

Muhammad: I have been made victorious by terror


The dictionary definition of terrorism is “the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear." Sadly, we are living in an age that we do not need to consult a dictionary to learn the meaning of terrorism. Even our children know about it and are affected by it. 

Islamic terrorism, however, did not start in 9/11 of 2001, nor did it start with the Iranian Islamic Revolution in 1979. Islamic terrorism has its origin in the sayings and examples set by Muhammad. 

In the last ten years of his life, after Muhammad migrated to Medina , he launched no less than 78 raids called qazwa (raid, ambush, sudden attack). Some of these qazwas involved the assassination of one opponent by one or a group of volunteers, and others were carried out by hundreds or thousands of warriors. Nonetheless a common characteristic of all Muhammad’s incursions was that they were done without notice. The enemy was caught off guard without being given the chance to prepare himself or be armed.  As such all Muhammad’s victims were civilians. 

The historian Abul Husain Muslim Nisapuri writes:

Ibn 'Aun reported: I wrote to Nafi' inquiring from him whether it was necessary to extend (to the disbelievers) an invitation to accept (Islam) before meeting them in fight. He wrote (in reply) to me that it was necessary in the early days of Islam. The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) made a raid upon Banu Mustaliq while they were unaware and their cattle were having a drink at the water. He killed those who fought and imprisoned others. On that very day, he captured Juwairiya bint al-Harith. Nafi' said that this tradition was related to him by Abdullah b. Umar who (himself) was among the raiding troops.”  Muslim 19: 4292 

 Muhammad used the same element of surprise in virtually all his raids. Bukhari writes:

Allah's Apostle (p.b.u.h) offered the Fajr prayer when it was still dark, then he rode and said, 'Allah Akbar! Khaibar is ruined. When we approach near to a nation, the most unfortunate is the morning of those who have been warned." The people came out into the streets saying, "Muhammad and his army." Allah's Apostle vanquished them by force and their warriors were killed; the children and women were taken as captives. Safiya was taken by Dihya Al-Kalbi and later she belonged to Allah's Apostle go who married her and her Mahr was her manumission. Bukhari 2.14.068

Here we read that Muhammad said: “the most unfortunate is the morning of those who have been warned.” This should not be interpreted as announcing his plans for war. Actually not even his men knew which town they are going to attack until they reached at the gates of that town.  He sent spies to the cities that he wanted to attack and ambushed them when they were least prepared. This “warning” should be interpreted with the understanding of the Muslim mind. As far as Muslims are concerned we are all warned. They have called us to convert or prepare to die. This is the warning. There will be no other warning. Now that they have issued the warning, we are all fair game. All the non-Muslims are legitimate targets of Islamic terrorism. Muslim warriors today, do what their prophet did and follow his examples. The pattern and the modus operandi, is already set.  All Muslims’ wars and conquests have been through raid.  This has been always the case and the secret of their success.  In one hadith Muhammad boasted, “I have been made victorious through terror”. Bukhari 4:52.220

About four years after Hijra, an ambulant vendor came to Medina reporting that the tribes of Anmar and Tha’laba, (sun clans of Ghatfan) have gathered in Dhatal Riqa’. Upon hearing this news Muhammad left his loyal companion Utham in charge of the city and with a group of four hundred men (or seven hundred) warriors immediately headed to the place of the gathering of these Arab tribes. He found no one there but a few women, between them there was a beautiful girl. They captured the women. The men of the tribe took refuge in the mountains. (Ibn Sa’d Tabaqat  V. 2 P. 59)

When the prayer time came, the Muslims were afraid that the Ghatafan men might descend from their mountain hideout and make a sudden attack on them while they were praying. Apprehending this fear, Muhammad introduced the ‘prayer of fear,’ where a party of faithful stands guard while the other party prays. Then they take turns. A revelation came from Allah on this provision regarding shortening of a prayer. (4:100-102) 

And when you journey in the earth, there is no blame on you if you shorten the prayer, if you fear that those who disbelieve will cause you distress, surely the unbelievers are your open enemy. (4:101)

Two months after the raid of Dhatal Riqa’ Muhammad received the news that a large group of Ghatfan has gathered in the oasis of Dumatal Jandal, between Hijaz and al-Sham to barter goods. This place was five nights journey from Medina . Muhammad immediately gathered one thousand of his followers. They rode during the night and hid during the day.  Muhammad also took the informer who was from the tribe of Bani udhrah as the guide. He reached this group at night time and the footprints of their herds of goats and camels could were still on the ground. The Muslims raided the herds of the animals, some of the shepherds were killed and some escaped. Muslims collected a large spoil.  When the news reached the people of Domat, they scattered and the Prophet found no one in their place. He stayed a few days and sent various groups to the neighborhood to investigate but they returned having found no one, except one man whom they took as captive.  Muhammad asked him about the tribe, the man said when the people heard about the raid they escaped. The Prophet then called upon him to accept Islam, which he did and then the Muslims returned to Medina . (Ibn Sa’d Tabaqat  V. 2 P. 60)

Muslim historian claim that Muhammad the Qatfan were planning to attack Muslims. This is typical Islamic mindset, that always blames their victims. As the their own tale makes it clear, these people were a bunch of nomads and herdsmen and not warriors. Today Muslims use the same excuses and blame their victims to justify thier crimes against humanity. As an Arab proverb says: Darabani, wa baka; Sabaqani, wa'shtaka “ He struck me, and started crying; then he went ahead of me and charged me with beating him!”  This has been Muhammad’s and his followers modus operandi. 


..

No comments: