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.

Sunday, June 30, 2013

Hitler çalled it national socialism, Ihsanoglu calls it islamlc caliphate - but they're both the same, fascists!


Both these men gave/gives a damn to the suffering their fascist ideologies caused/causes.





Why is it that the worst and most dangerous fascism of today is completely absent from the news channels?

OIC, the world's most powerful organization (it more or less already rules the UN) is led by Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, today's equivalent of Hitler (or worse if possible). He wants worldwide Sharia and silencing of any criticism of islam or Sharia! Got it? And when did you learn about this in your daily news channels?!



However, when it comes to images Klevius seems to have been for years the best informer on the web about the real core of islamofascism and its disgusting Sharia Fuhrer of the world Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu.





Since 1999, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) has sought rejection of the First Amendment of the US Constitution through a so-called “Global Blasphemy Law.” With help from the Obama Administration, UN Resolution 16/18 passed in the United Nations in 2011.


There's a growing crowd awakening from the widespread ignorance about islam. One of them, Patrick Condell, puts it eloquently in just a couple of minutes:



However, when it comes to knowledge in depth about sex segregation (sex apartheid) and its central role in the origin of islam as well as now, Klevius is your bedrock.



How the state assists fascism



Bob Taylor (in Washington Times): Incredible as it may sound, after the brazen daylight beheading of a British soldier in the streets of London by Islamic jihadists who proudly bragged on camera about their deed, The Daily Mail reports that British citizens were actually arrested for posting negative comments about Islam on social medias, Facebook and Twitter.

According to the Daily Mail online:


“A 22-year-old man has been charged on suspicion of making malicious comments on Facebook following the murder of British soldier Lee Rigby.

Benjamin Flatters, from Lincoln, was arrested last night after complaints were made to Lincolnshire Police about comments made on Facebook, which were allegedly of a racist or anti-religious nature.

He was charged with an offence of malicious communications this afternoon in relation to the comments, a Lincolnshire Police spokesman said.”

Reports are that two other men were arrested for Tweets, but released on bail.

What happened to common sense? Reason? What about Freedom of Speech and Religion? When did the ideals of our country become so distorted?

Muslims have the freedom to practice their beliefs as they please in this country. As long as they are peaceful and follow the laws of the land, nobody bothers them. Does it not seem logical that if they blow themselves or innocent people up that they are punished? Would that not be true for a Christian or a Jew or a Buddhist or an Atheist?

If the First Amendment guarantees free speech, where do Muslims derive the authority in this country to limit criticism of Islamic ideology, politics, religion and beliefs just because they do not like dissenting points of view?

In case you are not paying attention, denying First Amendment rights is an act tantamount to observing Sharia law which states that “anything concerning a (Muslim) person that he would dislike” is regarded as slander including criticism about his religion.

Fine. Let them believe what they want. The United States allows that. What it does not, or should not, allow is special modifications to the laws of our land purely because a religion disagrees with those of the host country.

There are other places in the world that adhere to Sharia law. Places where those practices are already in place. There is no need to change our beliefs when it is possible for those who follow Sharia to return to countries where their own ideologies are accepted.

From the outset, Islam has been an anger based religion. It has not changed in 14 centuries. The depth and breadth of that anger is unlimited.

Seemingly there is no end to Muslim rage that comes from following a puritanical doctrine.

Even now, according to Claire Lopez, the United Nations Human Council has Resolution 16/18 which will “bend U.S. law more closely to conformity with this Sharia definition of “slander: than anything currently on the books in American criminal law.”

Much has been written about the Muslim Brotherhood in recent months.

Sayyed Qutb, one of the major forces behind that organization during its formative years, wrote, “The chasm between Islam and Jahiliyyah (the non-Islamic world) is great, and a bridge is not built across it so that the people on the two sides may mix with each other, but only so that the people of Jahiliyyah may come over to Islam.”

Chances are Mr. Killian’s seminar will slip beneath the national media radar. However, it is still important to recognize that it is very much indicative of a chilling trend taking place in our country today.

If we are going to preserve America as we know it, we must be vigilant. We must be aware.




The individual vs theocratic power politics aided by BBC's fanatic bowing for islam, the worst ideological crime ever against humanity



WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden, and US Army Pfc Bradley Manning are all individuals chased by the US state, not for some criminal acts, but for fighting freedom of information.

Here about an other freedom fighter:

Paul Weston: Lance Bombardier Richard Field served in the Royal Canadian Artillery Regiment and fought for his country and the West as a young man in Europe in WWII wrote the following:

“As a Canadian who went to England during WWII as a 19 year old soldier and went into combat in North West Europe to defend our freedoms. The bile rises in my throat at the pitiful behavior of David Cameron and the policies of Britain in regard to anyone from anywhere in the Free Western world being told they cannot come and tell the truth about Islam and the end of our civilization if the political theocracy of that evil is allowed to prevail. I have heard Pamela Geller speak. She not only describes Islam’s theocratic plans to dominate all counties on earth but teaches us how to fight the battle peacefully. Cameron and the British government are cowards, frightened that the Islamists will react violently.

Were the matter not so serious, the following exchange between imam Dadwallah and Robert Spencer would be comedy gold in its exposure of the pig-ignorant and evasive imam and the thoroughly biased BBC, which sought desperately to expose Spencer as a bigoted “Islamophobe.” The BBC interviewer allowed Robert to quote a small number of Koranic verses which smear Jews and Christians as unclean, along with a couple of fairly typical jihadist kill-all-the-non-Muslims sort of stuff:

“How would you counter these quotes?” asked the BBC man, whereupon the imam instantly refused to argue against the unarguable and instead said the following:

“The Home Secretary needs to decide whether she should allow Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer to come to this country, especially on armed forces day. Is it going to be respectful, is it going to be distasteful for these individuals to come and honour the memory of Drummer Lee Rigby?”

Memo to imam Dadwallah: Respectful to attend a memorial for a murdered British soldier? Emphatically yes. Distasteful? No! Do you have any idea what you said? This terrible statement should have been picked up by the BBC interviewer, but alas went clean over his head, presumably because the prevailing opinion at the BBC is not too dissimilar to that of the cuddly imam.

After a tad more typical taqiyyah, the real comedy gold started when the interviewer finally lost patience with the discombobulating Dadwallah:

“But imam, imam, with all due respect, I’m sorry, but so often on this show we are asked by our Muslim listeners why haven’t we got an imam on to counter some of the things put out there…you cannot evade that…he (Robert Spencer) put the quotes out there, please explain the context!”

Imam Dadwallah had been caught out with his admission that Jews and Christians were “spiritually unclean” which he then tried to backtrack on. The interviewer then asked him if he could identify a single verse in the Koran which states that they (Jews and Christians) are equal to Muslims. The imam replies:

Imam:
   

“Not off the top of my head, I wasn’t asked to be prepared for…”

BBC:
   

“But you’re an imam!”

Imam:
   

“I understand that, but Robert Spencer…”

BBC:
   

“But he isn’t an imam!”

Imam:
   

“But this is his field…”

BBC:
   

“But Islam is your field surely?!”



If anyone thinks the interviewer was against the imam, they would be very much mistaken. The interviewer was just frustrated that he was unable to use his pet imam to debunk Robert and expose him as an “Islamophobe.” The interviewer went on to say:

The reason that I wanted you on the show was to counter the kind of accusations [actually, just quotes from the Koran — Ed.] that we hear from Tommy Robinson and Robert Spencer.”

And so the penny dropped. The BBC was out to discredit Spencer, but failed utterly to do so. The Communist Lowles failed utterly, and the imam failed utterly. Robert Spencer’s supposed “Islamophobia” consisted only of quoting the Koran. The inability to counter these quotes simply confirms that the Koran is a Hate Book, driven by supremacism, bigotry and anti-anything not Islamic. Robert Spencer was not banned because he twists the Koran; he was banned for exposing the hatred within the Koran. In Britain… by a Conservative government…

So when these thoroughly dreadful Conservative politicians are not banning truthful civil rights activists, what sort of delightful coves do they let into the country? Well, there are countless examples of war-mongering jihadists allowed into Britain; in fact we even have our own resident Bangladeshi war criminal who has been indicted for genocide back home in the East. But here is the most recent example of Cameronian culpability: one Mohammed al-Arefe, who bimbled over from Saudi just last week to partake of tea and a chat with his followers in Britain. One of his historical chats went like this:

“Devotion to jihad for the sake of Allah, and the desire to shed blood, to smash skulls, and to sever limbs for the sake of Allah and in defense of His religion, is, undoubtedly, an honor for the believer. Allah said that if a man fights the infidels, the infidels will be unable to prepare to fight.”

We do have actual laws that prohibit genuine hate preachers, such as the amiable imams above, from coming here. But those laws are ignored when the haters emanate from petro-dollar rich Saudi and Kuwait. Those hundreds-of-billions sure have some clout, hey, Dave?

But why let in skull-smashing Saudis whilst banning peaceful civil rights activists? As far as Theresa May is concerned, the mere presence of Geller and Spencer “would not be conducive to the public good” which is a pretty Orwellian and far-ranging totalitarian statement, assuming it is even legal.

What Ms May really means is that Muslim and far-left extremist groups will cause trouble if people advocating free speech are allowed entry to Britain in order to politely explain to baffled imams what their holy book really means when it commands them to slay the infidels. In order to appease the Muslim “community” Cameron and his government would rather betray their country, and the reason for this is based purely on the fact that the British parliament (within those hallowed halls where once strode Winston Churchill) is just downright frightened — nay, terrified — of Islam.

And this terror of Islam is because Islam uses terror. And quite clearly uses it very well. After the Muslim sex-slavery, rape and torture cases came before the public eye, there was a public tut-tutting, but little else. There is an ongoing scandal and a third enquiry into the awful murder of black teenager Stephen Lawrence and the subsequent police bungling of the operation, but there is no call for an enquiry into the fact that thousands of vulnerable native British girls were abused by hundreds of Pakistani “British” Muslims in full view of David Cameron, the police, the media and the social services, all of whom knew what was going on, but chose to do nothing about it. The blood of those children is on their hands, and I include David Cameron in that.

“Let’s just pretend it never happened” seems to be the official response. Racially motivated? Religiously motivated? Good Lord, no! If we admitted that, then we would have to use the hate laws to prosecute the perpetrators, and they are all the wrong colour and the wrong religion! Surely everybody is aware these laws were introduced to prosecute white Christians only! Anything else would be discriminatory!

So here we are then. A Prime Minister who thinks we have a lot to learn from Islam. A Prime Minister who is a founding signatory of Unite Against Fascism, which is a Communist thug organisation with a Muslim fascist, Azad Ali, sitting as its vice-chair. A Prime Minister who said nary a word about Muslim gang rapists, and the only words used by him about the murder of Fusilier Lee Rigby served to absolve Islam of any blame.

Britain is a country which allowed Muslim girls to attack white girls whilst screaming “kill the white bitch”, who were then absolved of a race crime. Britain promotes policemen to top positions who then publicly state on television that the 7/7 London transport bombings had nothing to do with Islam. Britain is a country that allowed any number of Muslim imams filmed by undercover C4 journalists to just carry on their hatred, even after their rants were aired on prime time TV. Let’s not prosecute them our Crown Prosecution Service said — they are the wrong colour and the wrong religion. Old boy.

Britain is a country that allowed its principal broadcasting outlet, the BBC, to disproportionately fill its studios with Muslims after 9/11 and to then blame America to loud applause from the audience, even as the U.S. Ambassador was reduced to tears by the sheer hatred and lack of human decency exhibited by the hating left and the hating Muslims.

Britain is a country that has clearly placed the interests of the followers of a savage, backward, violent, misogynistic, anti-Semitic and anti-Christian ideology both political and religious, stratospherically above the interests of its own native citizens. Britain is a country where Ignorance is Strength, Freedom is Slavery, Islam is Peace and Resistance to Islam is Evil.

Britain is lost.

Britain is a country that does prosecute you if you dare to mention that Islam indulges in a spot of gang-rape, and tells us it wants to blow us up. Britain is a country that threatens to prosecute T-Shirt vendors for inciting racial hatred if they wish to sell clothing bearing a logo saying “Respect our Culture, Respect our Laws or Get out of our Country”. Britain is a country that refuses to prosecute Muslims for hate crimes when they desecrate our war memorials, and Britain is a country that allows Jew-hating politicians like Keith Vaz to help decide just who should or should not be allowed entry to Britain.

And finally, Britain is a country that bans scholarly civil rights activists from entry, despite the fact they have never called for violence, cannot be exposed as being “Islamophobic” by Communists such as Nick Lowles and cannot be refuted by idiotic imams after directly quoting the Koran. Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer have been denied entry to Britain for two reasons. The first is that they speak the truth. The second is that they have sufficient knowledge to make sure the truth cannot be twisted.

The British patriot and philosopher Roger Scruton once said that if words no longer had the desired effect, then words would be replaced by deeds. By denying free speech, by denying words from Geller and Spencer, David Cameron is helping to ensure that deeds will be forced to replace words, because our own government no longer allows us to use words.

The deeds will be violent. No race or culture submits quietly to their disinheritance, but for traitors like Cameron these deeds will not affect him personally. Islam is growing nine times faster than any other demographic and young Muslim males are becoming increasingly radicalised at Saudi-funded mosques. This can only lead to future civil war, and Cameron has shunted this war onto the shoulders of his own children, and the shoulders of every innocent child in Britain who has no power to influence the future. Meanwhile, Prime Minister Cameron who does have the power to actually do something about it, but only uses it to clamp down on people he thinks are on the wrong side of history, the wrong side of morality and the wrong side of good.

But it is you, Mr Cameron, who is on the wrong side. One day I very much hope you will explain to a court of law just why, given the choice of backing good or evil, you chose evil. Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller are clearly good, but you barred them. The skull-crushing jihadi enthusiast Mohammed al-Arefe is clearly evil, yet here he is Britain. This is not Pakistan, yet you seem intent on enforcing sharia-compliant blasphemy laws as though your office were in Islamabad, not London.

I said earlier that no words can describe the sheer revulsion good and moral people feel about your recent action Mr Cameron. The civilised world is now talking about it in horrified tones. You have publicly shamed Britain on the international stage

Your abject cowardice in the face of potential Islamic aggression makes you a traitor to your country.



Klevius comment: Sayeeda Warsi is PM Cameron's right hand when it comes to support fascism!





Klevius question: Has there ever been a more misleading ad than this? I mean this is the dictatorship that continuously murders, rapes and tortures while its islamofascist oil/gas financed media gun Al-Jazeera misleads/distracts you.










Saturday, June 29, 2013

Muslim Human-rights-phobia (Sharia) is the other side of the fascist coin


We need a European Spring against fascist islam - so not to repeat what happened some 70 years ago!




Nothing can be more fascist than islam! A totalitarian racist/sexist ideology that cannot accept basic Human Rights and which makes it extremely hard for muslims to leave the "faith" because of its apostasy ban and fascist organization (e.g. Saudi and Sharia based OIC which now more or less rules the UN that was created to stop it).

And our worst enemies are some of our own politicians and their connections with the worst scumbugs you can imagine.





Ha Ha "islamophobia"













Patrick Condell is an English writer, political commentator, comedian and atheist. internet personality. He performed alternative comedy shows during the 1980s and 1990s in the United Kingdom, and won a Time Out Comedy Award in 1991. He was also a regular panelist on BBC Radio 1′s “Loose Talk”. As of March 2013, Pat Condell’s YouTube channel has over 177,902 subscribers and 44 million video views.


Sayeeda Warsi is probably now the worst threat to the Brits' Human Rights



Douglas Murray: According to the Home Office if you are a non-Muslim and you make the following statement your presence will be deemed ‘not conducive to the public good’ and you will be barred from entering the United Kingdom:

    ‘It [Islam] is a religion and a belief system that mandates warfare against unbelievers for the purpose for establishing a societal model that is absolutely incompatible with Western society. Because of media and general government unwillingness to face the sources of Islamic terrorism these things remain largely unknown.’

If, on the other hand, you are a Muslim and you say the following then the UK government has no problem with you, and you can come in to the UK to do a speaking tour:

    ‘Devotion to Jihad for the sake of Allah, and the desire to shed blood, to smash skulls and to sever limbs for the sake of Allah and in defense of His religion, is, undoubtedly, an honor for the believer.’

In welcoming the decision to ban the first speaker, rather than the second, Keith Vaz, chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, has said:

    ‘The UK should never become a stage for inflammatory speakers who promote hate.’

Too late, Keith.  Too late.



Some comments on this:


Avatar
chan chan • 2 days ago

Cameron and his dhimmi government once again enforcing shari'ah law.
60

Reply

Share ›

Avatar
Julieann Carter • 2 days ago

Gosh! This is terrible! Why? Why? Why? There's no good reason! How utterly disturbing and sinister is this malicious and cowardly 'affirmative action'. Stand alone Muslims in government appear to be more powerful and influential than the rest of parliament combined. That what it seems like. Bloody creepy. You really have to question the motivation of Keith Vaz in wishing to bar those who would speak out
truthfully against violent Islam (as opposed to 'peaceful Islam')? I thought we were all supposed to be on the same side here?
57

Reply

Share ›

Avatar
Marky_D • 2 days ago

Wasn't that long ago I was hoping Theresa May would oust Cameron. Are there absolutely no free speech loving conservatives in the Conservative party any more?
Presumably Theresa May would ban those who came back from Nurembourg with scaremongering stories about that nice Mr Hitler and his National Socialist party...
55

Reply

Share ›

Avatar
retundario • 2 days ago

This is the most outrageous decision, and I will not vote for LibLabCon as a matter of principal because of it. Not only is it grossly unfair, it is also just stupidly dangerous, in the sense that many people are so disgusted and fed up with the UK political class's blatantly far (far, far, far) stronger repression of British people's right to express things from our ethnic point-of-view, as compared to the ultra-liberalism that applies to ethnic hatred against us and claims to Britishness from non-whites.
80 1

Reply

Share ›

Avatar
Old Fox • a day ago

The double standard to which you refer has been in place for many years. It arises from the "anti-racist" establishment's commitment to anti-white racism. Under the term's of this belief, all whites are collectively guilty for the alleged crimes of white Europe across recorded time. This of course is a form of collective guilt, one of the pillars of antisemitism. It also ignores inconvenient facts such as the Islamic slave trade, the involvement of black African chiefs in the Atlantic slave trade and the enslavement of more than a million white Europeans by the Ottoman Sultan. As a result of this belief only whites or those friendly to "white" values and society, such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali, are considered guilty of "hate-speech" or worse, because the rest of the world is merely giving vent to the just rage of the "oppressed". Why do you think the sexual exploitation of white girls by Pakistani perverts in northern England is greeted with such bland sang-froid? Why do you think our so-called "liberals" are so reluctant to highlight Islamic persecution of Christians and others across the middle east and so eager to prattle about "Islamophobia" in the west? Why do you think they have been so happy to flood Europe's heartlands with hostile newcomers - often from Islamic countries? Our ruling elite is in the grip of a morbid, self-hating attitude which heralds the persecution and perhaps the holocaust of European peoples. Unless we can overthrow these criminally treacherous scum we are heading for an unimaginable catastrophe.





The pic below illustrates at least two things: 1) How fascism hides behind gas, and 2) how islam and sex segregation (apartheid) are synonyms.

And sadly, Peter Klevius still seems to be the web's by far best informed (and intelligent enough) auctority on sex segregation. He feels quite alone though* so please come up with some competition. However, keep in mind that he has already long since eaten and burped both Judith Butler and Pierre Bourdieu. And he is a proud Atheist and therefore not vulnerable for "monotheistic" sexism.

* except, of course, that he is supported by the whole world in its inevitable march towards de-sex segregation. Compare his Demand for Resources (1981, and in book format 1992), Daughters of the Social State (1994), Angels of Antichrist (1996), Warning for Feminism (1998), and http://klevius.info/pathologicalsymbiosis.html (2004). Just to name a few.


Qatar is a main hub (together with Saudi Arabia and some other muslim states)  for the spreading of islamic hatred and Human-rights-phobia (Sharia)


How many have muslim fascists murdered, raped and tortured in Libya, Syria and elsewhere?

Having anything to do with them can only be excused with ignorance!








Thursday, June 27, 2013

Is there a difference between Qatar and Taliban?!


This is the islamic perversion muslim born (apostate?!) Mr X Barry Barakeh Hussain Dunham Obama Soetoro (or whatever) approves of!






Fly or flee Qatar islamofascism?


Not only is the Qatari dictator family responsible for the murdering and victimization of millions of mainly muslims abroad, it has also some of the world's worst Human Rights records at home.


Some examples of islamic Human Rights violations in Qatar



Discriminatory Family Code

Family law was codified in 2006 with the introduction of Sharia Family Law, which applies to all muslims in Qatar, regardless of nationality.

A male guardian must sign a woman's marriage contract for it to be valid. Muslim women do not have the right to marry outside islam, although muslim men are free to marry whomever.

Polygamy is legal in Qatar. It is not known how many women in Qatar actually live in polygamous marriages.

The legal status of women and men as parents in Qatar is unclear. According to a forthcoming report by UN Women, within Qatari families it is widely accepted that the husband is the head of the household, and that he retains control over the household budget and expenditures. Domestic work and childcare remain the responsibility of the wife. Qatari women only have the right to pass citizenship onto their children in certain, limited circumstances. However, there is no information available on what these circumstances are.

Men in Qatar have the right to divorce their wives unilaterally (repudiate), while women’s rights to divorce are heavily restricted. Women can obtain a divorce if they can prove to a court that their husband has failed to uphold his marital duties (e.g. by providing insufficient financial support, or by deserting her). 
 Alternatively, they can request the court to grant a khula divorce, although this entails renouncing all future financial support, and a woman giving up her dowry. In cases of divorce, under the 2006 Sharia Family Law mothers retain responsibility of girls up to the age of 15 and boys up to the age of 13, although the father always remains the children’s legal guardian.

Women do not have equal inheritance rights in Qatar, as inheritance is also governed by Sharia, which allows women to inherit half what a similarly situated male relative would receive (e.g. daughters receive half the amount that sons receive).


Restricted Physical Integrity

Rape within marriage is not recognized as a criminal offense. Data on conviction rates are unavailable, and few rape victims report the crime, due to fear of Sharia and social stigma. There are no specific laws in place to protect women from domestic violence. Amnesty International reports that the law and state bodies do not protect women from sex-based violence in Qatar.

Qatari courts often give lenient sentences in cases when male violence against women has been motivated by ‘immodest behavior’ on the part of the victim, according to the Freedom House report. There are no statistics available as to the number of so-called ‘honour crimes’ in Qatar.

The domestic workers who form the bulk of Qatar’s female migrant population have limited awareness of or access to rights and justice. This means that they are effectively without protection in cases where they are experiencing physical, sexual or mental abuse, or the denial of their right to freedom of movement; according to Amnesty International, such cases are common. Amnesty also reports that in 2009, 52 foreign nationals were imprisoned, sentenced to flogging, and/or deported from Qatar for engaging in ‘illicit sexual relations’.

Qatari women do not have any legal control over their own fertility. Moreover, Qatari women are encouraged by the state to have large families, to aid the policy of ‘Qatarization’, to counter the demographic imbalance in the emirate between Qatari and non-Qatari nationals. They also face pressure from their families to give birth to large numbers of children. In fact, rapetivism is one of the most central pillars in islam.


Son Bias

Sex-disaggregated data regarding child labour was not available. However, according to survey data quoted in an unpublished report for UN Women, 28% of respondents felt that daughters should undertake domestic work in the home, compared to just 4% who felt that sons should. This may indicate son bias in regard to allocating domestic labor.



Restricted Access to Resources and Entitlements

Although increasing numbers of Qatari women are entering the business sector, many businesswomen operate through male intermediaries. This is because women directly engaging with male business contacts often face criticism from family members.


Restricted Civil Liberties

Qatari women need permission to apply for a drivers licence. Islamic sex segregation restricts interactions between unrelated men and women, and limit women’s access to non-sex segregated public spaces. It is not considered socially acceptable for women to live alone in Qatar, and those who choose to do so face criticism from their families and harassment. Migrant women working as domestic workers in Qatar face significant restrictions on their freedom of movement, including their right to leave the country, as their employers must give their consent before exit permits can be issued to allow them to leave.

Freedom of speech, assembly and association are non-existing in Qatar. According to a forthcoming report by UN Women, despite the presence of the well-known media company Al-Jazeera in Qatar, very few women work in the media in the emirate. Overall, the media environment is restricted, with little consideration of sensitive social issues – including sex issues – in local media. According to a 2010 report by Freedom House, the 2004 law governing private associations is so restrictive that independent women’s rights NGOs remain non-existent. As a result, most women’s organizations are state-run.

Women are virtually invisible in political life in Qatar; no woman has ever been appointed to the Advisory Council (the main legislative body, directly appointed by the Emir). 

Attitudes towards women in positions of leadership remain negative among many sections of the population, with 62% of women and men questioned for a 2007 survey reporting that they would not vote for a female candidate.

There is a significant sex gap between women and men in regard to earnings. In part, this is due to employers consistently disregarding the principle of equal pay, particularly in regard to allocation of benefits and bonuses.

Muslim Qatari husbands have a considerable say over their wives’ employment decisions, particularly due to sex segregation where a woman’s presence in the public sphere may lead to social contact with unrelated males.


Klevius' question: So what do you think about it, Janet Jackson?



Sunday, June 23, 2013

The Flag Day of Finland


The Finnish Lion tramping the sword of islam







Original flag of Finland when it became fully independent 1917.




Klevius proposal



The contemporary flag of Finland (Finnish: Suomen lippu, Swedish: Finlands flagga), also called siniristilippu ("Blue Cross Flag"), dates from the beginning of the 20th century and succeeded the original flag seen above which was first adopted after independence from Russia. The blue coloring is said to represent the country's thousands of lakes and the sky.

The first known "Flag of Finland" was presented in 1848, along with the national anthem Maamme. Its motif was the coat of arms of Finland, surrounded by laurel leaves, on a white flag.

The current blue-crossed design was first used in Finland by Nyländska Jaktklubben, a yacht club founded in Helsinki in 1861. In addition to the blue cross on the white background, the yacht club flag had the crowned arms of the province of Uusimaa (surrounding Helsinki/Helsingfors) within two crossed branches in the upper hoist quarter. Except for the position of the cross, the flag was similar to the flag of the St. Petersburg Yacht Club, founded the previous year. The design can be traced to the Russian Navy ensign, which has a blue cross saltire on a white background. During the Crimean War, Finnish merchant ships captured by the British-French fleet flew a flag called Flag of St. George, which was based on the Russian Customs flag. In this variant, the cross was thinner than in the modern flag, and the proportions were equal. Another blue-cross flag was made official in 1861 for private vessels.

In 1910, in connection with Russification of Finland, the Russian authorities decreed that a Russian flag was to be added to the canton. However, this was met with resistance; the flag was derided as the "slave's flag" (orjalippu), and most Finns refused to fly it. Instead, a triangular pennant without this modification was flown, thereby circumventing the decree concerning flags.

This culminated in Eugen Schauman killing Governor-General Nikolai Ivanovich Bobrikov (and himself) in 1904.

In 1906 Finland became the world's first nation to give women full voting rights.

Shortly after Finland gained full independence in 1917, a competition was held for the design of the Finnish flag. Several different designs were submitted. Regarding the colours, the entries fell mainly into two categories – one using the red and yellow from the Finnish coat of arms, and the other using the present blue and white colours.

One entry had the Dannebrog cross design, but with a yellow cross on a red background. Another entry had diagonal blue and white stripes, but it was criticized as being more suitable for a barber shop than a newly-independent country. Akseli Gallen-Kallela proposed a similar cross flag, but with colors inverted (white cross on blue), but this was considered too similar to the Swedish flag and particularly the Greek flag of the time. Finally, artists Eero Snellman and Bruno Tuukkanen specified the final form of the flag.

The state flag was further modified in 1922, when the coronet was removed, and again in 1978 when the shield-shaped coat of arms was changed into a rectangular shape.







Friday, June 21, 2013

God midsommar (Swe), Good Midsummer!


Judaism is a tiny little religion in a world where most people don't believe in "monotheism" and have never done so. However, because of the Romans, the Christian branch of Judaism, and later its islamic branch, came to grow in an unhealthy way. Christianity because Constantine made it a state religion in the vast Roman empire, and islam because it represented pure evil enslavement, looting and rapetivism in the vacuum after the Romans left Mideast.

This is the empty background on which preposterous "monotheist" propaganda is painted as some sort of "human spiritual need" while the real human need is for Human Rights!  

BBC and other outlets for religion propaganda do their utmost to ridicule or belittle non-religious believers in every humans equal rights while boasting the most racist and sexist people as long as they belong to the "monotheist" tradition.

Remember, the world was completely non-monotheist before monotheism was invented by "the chosen people". And of course, it's up to you to to handle your racist primitivist prejudices, i.e. that non-monotheist "pagan" societies represented "a lower form of civilization".




Monoitheism(s) is the most racist and sexist form of any religion. Everyone with a functioning brain can easily determine that 'monotheism' means equally many 'Gods' or 'Allahs' as there are believing brains and that the prevailing one is always rooted to the biggest sword. In other words, the very opposite to (negative) Human Rights which were created to protect all individuals from fanatic God-bullies. 






















The Finnish origin of the Vikings









Klevius linguistic question: How was the strange affinity between Indoeuropean Icelandic and Uralic Finnish created between Kvenland and Iceland?




There was of course another language, Kvenish-Finnish, that was present in Fennoscandia and somehow influenced the ancient Old Nordic language. This language was a result of the meeting of the farming centered younger Indoeuropean language family (represented by Old Nordic, aka North Germanic) and the much older Finnish-Uralic branch stemming from Eurasiatic hunting-gatherer cultures.

Finnish possesses some of the oldest words in the world, some of them still in their original Uralic form. In faceuropeant, the old Finnish stems seem to be closer to their distant roots than other Uralic languages despite the fact that Finland has been the most modernized of them all. Of course, this applies only to a few hundred basic words but still.
 

Whereas Indoeuropean languages are strongly rooted in a Neolithic agricultural past Uralic languages are rooted in hunting/gathering societies i.e. pre-Neolithic.

Dear reader, in this context it's important to consider that both Proto-Uralic as well as PIE are quite diffuse concepts among linguists. This is why the farming/hunting-gathering dichotomy is useful even despite the fact that the borders between them are at least equally diffuse except for the undeniable fact that hunting-gathering always came first (Klevius in Demand for Resources - on the right to be poor 1992).

Indo-European Old Nordic (aka Old Norse) developed into "Western" and "Eastern" variants. Western Norse covered Norway and overseas settlements in Iceland, Greenland, the Faroe Islands and the Shetland Islands, while Eastern Norse developed in Denmark and south-central Sweden and coastal Finland.

The language of Iceland and the non Finnish/non Saami Fennoscandia was practically the same up until the 14th century, when they started to deviate from each other. This is e.g. when old Norwegian started shaping up.

During the late Old Nordic period and this period there was also a considerable adoption of Middle Low German vocabulary. Similar development in grammar and phonology happened in Swedish and Danish, keeping the dialect continuum in continental Scandinavia intact, but with greater dialectal variation. This process did not, however, occur in the same way in Faroese and Icelandic. These languages remain conservative to this day, when it comes to grammar and vocabulary, so mutual intelligibility with continental Scandinavia was lost.





The Uralic languages belong to a single Eurasian belt of agglutinative languages together with the Altaic languages streching from Fennoscandia in the west to Japan in the east


Not only typological parallelism, but also stress on the first syllable as well as lack of third person pronoun sex segregation (e.g. Finnish 'hän' instead of 'he/she' apartheid) is accompanied by areal adjacency, allowing us to speak of a distinct Ural-Altaic language area and language type we may call Eurasiatic and which is at least equally old as the post-glacial era.

Some roots for Eurasiatic: mi (what?, mi/kä or mi/tä in modern Finnish), pälä (two), akʷā (water), tik (one or finger), konV (arm 1), bhāghu(s) (arm 2), bük(ä) (bend or knee), punče (hair), p'ut'V (vagina or vulva), snā (smell or nose), kamu (seize or squeeze), and parV (the verb to fly)


Modern Finnish preserves old words equal or almost equal more often than other languages - the case of Gotland

The ancient Persian word for god 'khoda' connects to the much older Finnish 'koti' and Finno-Ugric 'kota' (=home/house/seed vessel - see Klevius definition of religion and the Vagina gate). Other connections of 'koti'/'kota'/'goahti' include German Gott (god) and Swedish gott (good) as well as Gotland (pronounced Gottland) or Kottlanti, the good homeland, which also connected to Goths and gothic.

The Finnish k turned into g in Saami 'goahti' and is the reason why it's called Gotland/Gutland insted of Kotlandi/Kutlandi or Kotlanti/Kutlanti. Gotland was originally populated by Sami people. The habitants of Gotland were called 'guter' which word is convincingly connected to 'goter', i.e. Goths.

Gotland has also older graves than those found on mainland Sweden.

One of the world's oldest runic inscriptions 'GAOIS' is found on Gotland.

Gotland possesses a rune stone that shows the oldest known runic alphabeth.

In Medieval time Gotland seems to have been much wealthier than mainland Sweden. Gotland also possessed the world's largest hords of silver coins from  slave trade with Jews and muslims.

It's noteworthy that Gotland has also been called Gulland and had a water link through Sweden to what is now Gothenburg and from there over to Danish Jylland  where Shakespeare's Hamlet resided and whose father was a Goth/Jute.

Klevius bilingual Viking theory gets overwhelming support from the fact that the oldest Viking traffic to/from Gotland took the northern Finnish route via the Bay of Finland and Staraja Ladoga instead of via Riga or Poland.



Examples of reconstructed Proto-Uralic words:

Body parts and bodily functions: *ïpti hair on the head (compare 'ripsi' in modern Finnish), *ojwa head (compare 'oiva' in modern Finnish), *śilmä eye (same as in modern Finnish), *poski cheek (same as in modern Finnish), *kä(x)li tongue ('kieli' in modern Finnish), *elä- to live (same in modern Finnish), *ka(x)li- to die ('kuolla', and 'kuoli' in imperf. in modern Finnish)), *wajŋi breath (in modern Finnish 'vainaja' means a dead), *kosi cough, *kunśi urine ('kusi' in modern Finnish), *küńili tear ('kyynele' in modern Finnish), *se(x)ji pus.

Kinship terms: *emä mother (same in modern Finnish), *čečä uncle ('setä' in modern Finnish), *koska aunt, *mińä daughter-in-law ('miniä' in modern Finnish), *wäŋiw son-in-law ('vävy' in modern Finnish).

Verbs for universally known actions: *meni- to go ('mennä', 'meni' in imperf in modern Finnish), *toli- to come ('tulla', 'tuli' in imperf in modern Finnish), *aśkili- to step ('askel' is step in modern Finnish), *imi- to suck ('imi' is sucked in modern Finnish), *soski- to chew, *pala- to eat up ('pala' is a piece in modern Finnish), *uji- to swim ('ui' is swim in imperf in modern Finnish), *sala- to steal ('salata' means to hide in modern Finnish), *kupsa- to extinguish ('kupsata' used for to die in modern Finnish).

Basic objects and concepts of the natural world: *juka river ('joki' in modern Finnish), *toxi lake, *weti water ('vesi/vettä' in modern Finnish), *päjwä sun (same but also day in modern Finnish), warmth, *suŋi summer ('suvi' in modern Finnish), *śala- lightning ('salama' in modern Finnish), *wanča root ('vanka', 'vankka' means steady in modern Finnish), *ko(x)ji birch, *ka(x)si spruce ('kuusi' in modern Finnish), *sïksi Siberian pine, *δ'ï(x)mi bird cherry

Elementary technology: *tuli fire (same in modern Finnish), *śüδi coal, *äjmä needle (same in modern Finnish), *pura drill ('pora' in modern Finnish), *jïŋsi bow ('jousi' in modern Finnish), *jänti bow string ('jänne' in modern Finnish), *ńï(x)li arrow ('nuoli' in modern Finnish), *δ'ümä glue ('liima' in modern Finnish), *lïpśi cradle, *piksi rope, *suksi ski (same in modern Finnish), *woča fence.

Basic spatial concepts: *ïla below ('alla' in modern Finnish), *üli above ('yli' in modern Finnish), *wasa left ('vasen' in modern Finnish), *pälä side.

Pronouns: *mun I (meaning mine in modern Finnish), *tun you ('sun' meaning yours in modern Finnish), *ke- who (same in modern Finnish), *mi- what (same in modern Finnish).

The reconstructed vocabulary is compatible with a Mesolithic culture (bow, arrow, needle, sinew, but also rope, fence, cradle, ski), a north Eurasian landscape (spruce, birch, Siberian pine), and contains interesting hints on kinship structure.







see what Klevius wrote

Thursday, June 22, 2006

Klevius' Midsummer-blot: The Viking, the Valkyrie, and Islam induced increase in slave trading + examples of modern Islamic contempt/racism etc.


Klevius Definition of religion

A leading Saudi government cleric and author of the country's religious curriculum, Sheik Saleh Al-Fawzan (according to WorldNetDailyCom): "Slavery is a part of Islam" - "Slavery is part of jihad, and jihad will remain as long there is Islam."


Klevius comment: Islamic trafficking/slavery is still on! The main idea in Islam is the racist "infidel" concept given directly by a god (in Koran) and hence unquestionable. This setting paved the way for Islam as a manual/social order not only allowing slavery/trafficking etc, but also tremendously increasing it. This (racist/sexist infidel contempt) is why Islam is the worst of all slave traders!


Valkyrie (also) means 'chosen from the slain'!

The real Valkyrie was the little crying, helpless Finnish, Baltic or Russian girl who the Vikings chose to save and kidnap after having slain her family/village. Why? Because she was the most valuable "item" to trade to Islam via eastern Europe's almost perfect lowland river network! Islam hence historically caused a never seen before drainage of white slave girls to the Abbasid, Coordoba and other Islamic Caliphates. By symbolizing the slain people as immoral 'vaners' (the only 'vaners' named are Freja, the fertility and love goddess, her sister, and their father who had married his own sister), and by knowing the value of the Islamic silver coins (stolen from e.g. Central-Asia) and gold (stolen from e.g. Africa) the incentives were strong enough.

The medieval darkness caused by Islam is really an eye-opener for those historians who dare to critically scrutinize Islam for what it really stands for, and the consequences of the Islam-induced slave/rapetivism/genocide economy. Such a re-reading of medieval history is very rewarding for the truth seeker! BTW, ARE THERE ANY UNIVERSITIES DARING TO SUPPORT SUCH RESEARCH ANYWAY? At least don't send your application to Harvard (see posting below)!

IS 14oo YEARS OF ISLAMIC SLAVERY/GENOCIDE/RAPETIVISM THE WORST HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATION EVER?

The killing of Swedish journalist Martin Adler by over-enthusiastic Islamists now covered up by other Islamists?!

Mustafa Haji reports the shoutings he heard before Martin Adler was murdered: "'We don’t need infidels'…and finally BAM!" And Sweden's Islamofascist secretary of state Annika Söder assures the Swedes through Islamofascist Swedish state media (before the investigations have even started!): "We will probably not know who did it"!

Pure evilness at Stockholm University (WC) from true Islam in June 2006


"A good fire-bomb can Islamize a world"




Klevius comment: Lunatic ideas attract lunatics! This is the essence of Islam today and the inevitable result of supporting Islamofascism instead of telling the truth! Swedish politicians/officials/media all have the blood of Islam's victims on their hands. From Darfur to Martin Adler etc.


Swedish Attorney General Göran Lambert OKs Stockholm mosque's Islamofascist incitements for murdering Jews and naming them "apes, pigs and dogs"!

"The Israel-Palestine conflict can be used to excuse it" is his defense for why he stopped the legal process from going to court, hence paving the way for even more anti-semitism in Sweden. Reminds me of the Versailles treaty that paved the way for Hitler's national-socialism!


Islam induced contempt/racism on the rise among Swedish children/youth etc.

While child "protection" (see Angels of Antichrist + links) authorities focus on non-Muslim homes Islamist (and Islam induced) racist kids/youth etc. commit hate crime assaults against other children because they are blond or whatever lunatic reason they may have. In Malmoe, Sweden's third largest city (where the most common name on newborn boys is Mohammed) there is, according to the police, an unprecedented increase in such assaults. Also one may ask whether it's a coincidence that old "welfare states" like England, Sweden, NZ etc seem to top the list of "happy slapping" youth etc. (again see Angels of Antichrist etc)! And again, we don't need neither a costly, repressive and incompetent social state, nor do we need a "religion" based on "infidel" contempt, racism and sexism! We need, globally, basic protection of our (negative) human rights, education and healthcare + a minimum level of means for survival given to everyone without asking.





Tuesday, June 18, 2013

Mr X "president", who bowed deeply for the islamofascist Saudi oil dictator, now shakes hand with the Taliban - and farts at women's rights


Is it islamophobia to dislike these murderous dictators and their supporters?

Thes guys are responsible for the death of more than 100,000 in Syria. Their black head-bands certainly not belong to saints.





Fly Qatar Airways to the Taliban's headquarter in Qatar - Mr X "president", muslim born (apostate?!) Barry Barakeh Hussain Obama Dunham Soetoro (or whatever) does!

And when Mr X "president" says he will ask the devil the Taliban to respect "women's rights" it constitutes no problem for the Taliban because for them, as for OIC, Sharia takes care of women's "rights".

What sanctions the violations against girls' and women's rights is islam, period! And this fact is clearly visible for everyone who dares to look.



There has been a 50 percent increase in women and girls being imprisoned for “moral crimes” over the last 2 years.

Most females in Afghan jails are victims of sexually motivated violence and had run away from their attackers.

Four years after the adoption of a law on violence against women and 12 years after Taliban rule, women are still imprisoned for being victims of forced marriage, domestic violence and rape.



But while Afgan girls/women suffer the Saudi criminals party.




Press-TV:

Ali al-Maliki said in a televised interview that these individuals - all enjoying immunity from prosecution - excessively indulge in sensual pleasures, crazy partying and wild night parties often accompanied by a lot of alcohol.

He added that he has heard about the ongoing promiscuity in the country from several youths, who used to attend the parities but are remorseful of their past deeds.

Maliki also pointed to the massive flow of narcotics into Saudi Arabia, noting that members of the governing regime are involved in smuggling and trade of illicit drugs in the country.

Saudi Arabia is the world's largest oil exporter, with the black gold accounting for 90 percent of the country's exports.

However, corruption is so ingrained in Saud Arabia’s royal family that despite the country’s enormous oil money, it struggles with problems such as poverty and unemployment.

Job growth and welfare programs in Saudi Arabia have failed to keep pace with a booming population that has soared from 6 million in 1970 to 28 million today, according to a report published in December 2012 by the Washington Post.

The report added that in Saudi Arabia, “poverty and anger over corruption continue to grow. Vast sums of money end up in the pockets of the royal family through a web of nepotism, corruption and cozy government contracts, according to Saudi and US analysts.”


Klevius comment: Look at the comments below. What strikes me most is the similarity in rhetoric between Western politicians and islamist fundamentalists. Both repeat the naive mantra about some "real islam" beyond what we see and experience.  However, when you accept that islam was born evil the loose pieces in your world-view will start fitting reality!



Comments (16)
Add Comment Click Here
Note: The views expressed and the links provided on our comment pages are the personal views of individual contributors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Press TV.
GIBMO
May 25, 2013 6:1 AM
OH THE HOUSE OF AL-SAUD, YOU HAVE BECOME A CANCER TO THE PROGRESS OF ISLAM..OH THE HOUSE OF SAUD, YOU HAVE BETRAYED ALLAH, THE PROPHETS AND THE UMMA..MAY ALLAH FORGIVE YOU IF YOU TURN BACK TO HIM..AND MAY ALLAH PUNISH YOU IF YOU FAIL AND CONTINUE TO HARM ISLAM...AMEEN
Click to Rate ReplyRating2
Debauchery
May 24, 2013 2:49 AM
Is it proper to have the House of Saud the guardian of Islam's two holiest sites?
Click to Rate ReplyRating4
your fathers are facing unimaginable punishment
May 23, 2013 5:16 PM
the al saud family are the descendants of abu jahl and the other evil chiefs of quraish
Click to Rate ReplyRating10
remember the day of judgement!!
May 23, 2013 4:32 PM
i have always respected osama bin ladin no matter what people said about him because he was a saudi prince who could'v lead such a corrupt disgraceful hypocrite lifestyle with his family if he wanted, but he refused to and decided to live a very simple life in the mountains and caves of afghanistan to expose his family regime and to start a khilafat movement which fights for truth and justice to the very end, even if the whole world is against them. you guys may disagree with me but i believe that only the likes of the taliban can truly free the muslim world, establish the khilafat and bring these oppressive hypocrite traitor tyrants to justice. its us the muslim sheeple citizens around the world that is holding them back from saving us.
Click to Rate ReplyRating3
Islam is progressivein reply to remember the day of judgement!!
5/23/2013 6:21:16 PM
The first thing you need to know is that in Islam there no prince or princes or even king,all muslims are brothers and equal(please read Quran)second,the khalifat you are talking about unfortunately appeared to be cannibals,look what they are doing in syria,free muslims are real Iranians who freed their country from foreigners first and then stood on their own feet both men and women and now have become role model in the world,please wake up.
Click to Rate Rating7
Arianoin reply to remember the day of judgement!!
5/23/2013 5:27:55 PM
Anyone who lived in Afghanistan knows who are the Taliban.Dont spread lies here. Taliban is a ISI-CIA-Takfiro Crypto Zio group backed to the teeth by those Saudi Butchers.Even Nazis were better then those Satanic Pashtoon tribes famous for barbarism, destruction and ethnic cleansing of other minorities in Afghanistan. Bin Ladin was the best CIA asset as Gordon Duff said.
Click to Rate Rating5
people like you will always face hardshipin reply to remember the day of judgement!!
5/23/2013 5:07:01 PM
@ RAHEEL there is a BIG HUMONGOUS difference between the taliban/hezbollah and alqaeda (free syrian army and al nusra front for e.g). who you are describing is al qaeda, NOT the taliban.
Click to Rate Rating2
Raheelin reply to remember the day of judgement!!
5/23/2013 4:50:20 PM
Do u know have a sense of what you are saying. Those illiterates are a curse to Muslims. Their destiny is in Hell with their leader because of the crimes they commited against innocent muslims with the support of America. Who ever is telling you this is a big Hypocrite.
Click to Rate Rating7
Ariano
May 23, 2013 3:45 PM
There is a video of a Dutch woman on youtube who was abused as child by European Elite in Satanic rituals, I was shocked when she said that twice she was brought to Saudi Arabia in her childhood time for such Satanic abuse rituals. She said that there was also the famous Rabbi Schnerson...
Click to Rate ReplyRating7
Throw Saud Family out of Arabia
May 23, 2013 2:48 PM
Throw Saud Family out of Arabia - they are a filth to the land of the prophet
Click to Rate ReplyRating15
JJ
May 23, 2013 1:38 PM
Once the USA falters, these guys are going to last aboutas long as a snowball in the Sahara. I hope the people of Saudia Arabia put them all on trial then, they are a criminalmafia.
Click to Rate ReplyRating16
Yes!
May 23, 2013 1:24 PM
I have seen them in London. They spend Money on women, drugs, .... specially the most Beautiful women. It is a consumtion society for West. So, they support this dictatorship because it is in their interests. So called Western democracies and their puppet dictators, all of them, slaves of Zionists who support terrorism for Zionist IsraHell. What a wonderful World? Welcome to the new World order after 9/11! huge lies and hypocrisies of Western domination!
Click to Rate ReplyRating15
Puppets must fallin reply to Yes!
5/23/2013 1:31:01 PM
I have seen Saudis go to Manama, Bahrain to enjoy alcohol, drugs, and women. Every weekend the causeway that links KSA to Bahrain is full of Saudi traffic. What is the heart of the Islamic lands and the birthplace of our Prophet (pbuh) has been corrupted by the filthy Al Sauds.
Click to Rate Rating20
Puppets must fall
May 23, 2013 1:19 PM
These filthy, disgraceful, un-Islamic, traitor Zionist puppets must be overthrown! There are no words strong enough to express my revulsion of them. They are the root cause of all problems in the Muslim world today.
Click to Rate ReplyRating25
suleimanj
May 23, 2013 12:44 PM
For almost one century now. our blood have been spilling ,all those who died on this cause are shuhadaa, we have know the why? bz these giant hypocrites( saudi king,qadar,kuwait ,and bahrain) were leading us . They should be prepared for doom now and hellfire. ALAQSA will inshaAllah be liberated and muslims will be one. the zionist and brethren kingdoms clock is ticking.the wave of the sunami that will engulf them like pharoah has already begun.
Click to Rate ReplyRating18
Guys who never worked
May 23, 2013 12:38 PM
What a disgrace artificial smile,just like children who are excited for candies,chocolates and baloons....fools









Monday, June 17, 2013

Is UN's schizophrenia incurable?


History repeats itself

While UN is taken over by islamofascists archbishop Justin Welby in his pathetic medieval speech for the Queen’s coronation 60th anniversary had the nerve to state “We live in a hierarchy of liberty under authority that ascends to God. Here is the model of liberty and authority. Liberty is only real when it exists under authority. Liberty under authority  begins with our duty to God"

Klevius: However, as an atheist I'm less interested in God than in the humans staying on the steps just below God. Dear Justin, you've got it all wrong! The very idea of basic Human Rights is to defend our all freedom against authorities. We are our own authority and the system is called democracy. Or maybe you've already abandoned Human Rights because of your "inter-faith" duties!

Read about Negative Human Rights and cure your ignorance!


Turkish OIC Fuhrer Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, who is proposed by Saudi Arabia to be UN's next secretary general (sic), asks the West to bomb Syria.

The fascist symbol of German National-socialism (aka "Nazism") was actually less totalitarian than OIC's islamofascist world embracing Umma nation symbol.



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.










Sunday, June 16, 2013

How many murderous, racist and sexist Allahs do muslims have?


Some 100,000 humans, mostly muslims, have now been killed in the islamic religious "monotheist" sectarian violence in Syria that is backed by the Saudi, Qatar, Turkey etc islamofascist leaders.



When muslims dislike other muslims they call them takfiri, i.e. an apostate who is not a true muslim, i.e. who believes in the wrong Allah.

And to make it impossible to decide whose Allah is the "right" one, islam has made Allah redundant in its praxis.

So the only function left to these Allahs is as a reference to why one commits what would be classified as atrocities etc. under Human Rights.


There are no "right" or "wrong" humans in Human Rights!


Because of islam's inherent incompatibility with Human Rights the Saudi based Sharia organization OIC with 57 member states introduced islamofascist Sharia via UN as an excuse for violating Human Rights.












Tuesday, June 11, 2013

Erdogan thinks introducing Sharia against the will of 88% is "democratic"!


Erdogan is not democratically elected because he deliberately lied by not openly telling the voters about his Sharia plans for Turkey! And although Klevius during the two last elections tried to inform the Turks via the web few were able to hear this crucial information due to the conventional media's noisy support of Erdogan and his party.

Two Turkish islamofascist fanatics





The origin of islam and its Sharia finance was parasitism centered on the enslavement of "infidels" and girls/women.


Erdogan now plans to build the world’s largest mosque in Istanbul, which is located in Europe. Moreover, he wants an islamic ruked Turkey to become the biggest member state in EU. And just like Hitler, Erdogan, though democratically elected (Hitler got first 33% and later more than 90% support from the Germans), he is for the introduction of Sharia which is undemocratic because it's islam and "islam covers all aspects of life".

Ihsanoglu, the leader of all muslims Saudi based Sharia organization OIC, in an interview said he wants to reinstate the Ottoman empire, which, btw, was nothing else than a Sharia financed slave market which fell in total misery and decay at the exact beat of the West's campaign against slavery.


Most Turks are islamophobes
According to an April 2013 Pew Institute survey, only 12 percent of Turks want Sharia (i.e. the very core of islam).




Shadowy Sharia finance
Businessmen who, together with pious muslim men and ignorant women, made up Erdogan's constituency, benefit from the AKP party’s spending via the public sector and government contracts etc.













Monday, June 10, 2013

Islamofascism


                                         Fascism




                                         and one of its victims

 




Aleppo province in Syria: A 15 year old boy, Muhammad Qatta', a was executed by rebel fighters in the Sha'ar neighbourhood of Aleppo. SOHR activists in Aleppo have verified that Islamist rebel fighters detained the young boy at 10 p.m. last night from where he worked selling coffee in the Sad al-Lawz area of al-Sha'ar, they took the boy for blaspheming during an argument while he was working; he said "even if Muhammed comes back to life i won't lend". They later returned with the boy to the area, the child's shirt was made to cover his head, his body had obvious marks from torture and beating. The rebels then publicly announced, and they spoke not in a Syrian accent but in a classical Arabic one, that apostasy and cursing the prophet is a terrible vice and that anyone who does so will face similar fate. They then shot the boy twice with a automatic rifle in front of the gathered crowd, a shot in the neck and a shot in the head, and then left in their car. The boy's mother and father were among the crowd. The SOHR demands that the killers of the child be brought to justice. It is important to note that the Shari'a court of Aleppo has a security branch in the area but did not stop the summary execution of the boy.







 

Sunday, June 09, 2013

How many mosque rats at Leicester University?





Sexist islam in UK universities






Sharia sex segregation or Human Rights for girls/women?

In every possible form of Sharia girls/women are forced to lead their lives in sex apartheid of varying degrees. But according to Human Rights every girl/woman has the right to decide herself what kind of life she wants to lead - incl. a sex segregated life if she so wishes.

In islam women and non-muslims are all "infidels", and the only thing that really distinguishes a woman as muslim is her "duty" towards islam to reproduce (physically and/or culturally) as many new muslims as possible. .


In John Peters Humprey's world view "infidels" didn't exist


John Peters Humphrey (peace be upon him and Human Rights) is the last prophet of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights - and he is utterly defamated by muslim Humanrightsophobes - yet all the Billions of Human Rights followers take it (too?) calmly.

John Peters Humphrey (who actually existed and who wasn't a pedophile or a murderous scumbag or a fanatic warlord or a terrorist) wrote the first draft of the Universal Human Rights Declaration (peace be upon him and Human Rights). Here's part of his profound and sacred original revelation:





"Subject to the laws governing slander and libel there shall be full freedom of speech and of expression by any means whatsoever, and there shall be reasonable access to all channels of communication. Censorship shall not be permitted"

Klevius comment: By 'libel' and 'slander' John Peters Humphrey of course meant something directed to an existing individual, not a totalitarian ideology!

Human Rights and islam are irreconcilable: Klevius knows it, OIC knows it - how come that McGill University doesn't know it?!


When a Sharia believing muslim, Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na`im, says Sharia is reformable he lies straight up your "infidel" face. The very fact that OIC had to step aside of the Human Rights Declaration speaks for itself. And when this crypto-islamofascist is allowed to "lecture" (read lie) at McGill University it's the worst possible insult against the work of John Peters Humphrey and Human Rights.

Islam is dependent on sex-apartheid and can never survive without it! A Sharia without sex apartheid is impossible. Muslim men are the only true muslims and "muslim" women are there to sexually and reproductively satisfy muslim men and islam, period. That this arrangement then can take many different forms doesn't change these basic facts at all.

Human Rights, on the other hand allows girls/women freedom from sex apartheid.

The fact that women married to muslims are, in general, in a better position in secular societies doesn't at all excuse the horrifying fact that Sharia NEVER will give women equality! It's the Human Rights, dude, that makes life easier for women married to muslim men in secular states where legislation takes its inspiration from the Universal Human Rights Declaration, not from an evil and totalitarian sex slave ideology! The idea about so-called “muslim laws” as a colonial construct, is quite hilarious when considering that islam through its Sharia slavery finance throughout some 1400 years has been the by far worst colonizer ever in human history. Moreover, "the realities of muslim(men)'s lives and how they see their relationship to islam and Sharia" is nothing more than the repetition of the senseless islam excuse that "because we're used to do so" it's ok!

Hitler and his National-socialists (politically backed by the Germans) censored everything that was against their ideology. For islam censorship is even more important precisely because unlike the short-lived German National-socialism (popularly called Nazism for the purpose of hiding its socialist roots) islam has a 1400 year history of the worst atrocities you can imagine!

It's against this background you shall consider John Peters Humphrey's (peace be upon him and Human Rights) revelation above!




Sayeeda Warsi fights for Sharia and calls the defense for Human Rights "islamophobia"







Btw, today an islamofascist muslim on BBC compared islamic Koran based violent terrorists with the tiny (and spat on by every media and politician) English Defense League, and said that calling muslim terrorists muslims isn't fair against muslims. However, unlike EDL muslims constitute the world's biggest community and has the world's biggest organizations (islamofascist Sharia-OIC and UN) behind them, yet do not show any effort whatsoever to call those muslims apostates!