BBC abuse children in their war propaganda, and (like pathetic Michelle Obama) generalize about women and Trump - all in an effort to protect Saudi Sunni sharia islamofascism
How could it possibly be more important to get rid of Assad than getting rid of the Saudi backed muslim terrorists who are the only ones hindering a peace process?
The two words behind the majority of atrocities that BBC etc. don't want you to think about: Saudi and sharia! In their place BBC etc. have placed Trump and Russia.BBC's bigotry/hypocrisy seems to have no limits whatsoever anymore in their eager/desperate effort to pave the way for Saudi (Sunni/Salafist/Wahhabist) sharia islamofascism.
Every day now BBC send children's voices from Syria/Aleppo asking Assad to stop the war - but not a single mentioning about the Saudi backed muslim terrorists (al-Nusra/al,-Qaeda etc) who keep the the terror ticking. And not a single child voice from Yemen complaining about the Saudi atrocities there. And after the children's voices BBC put forward Boris Johnson (the guy the US administration laught at just a few month ago when informed he would stand as a PM candidate) asking for an escalation by proposing UK military intervention for the purpose of protecting the Saudi backed muslim jihadis from air attacks.
Interestingly, BBC always talk about "people" killed in Syria by Russia, without showing any effort to specify that they in most cases are muslim terrorists who usually use hospitals, schools etc. as their main basis for launching attacks - precisely because they know its propaganda value. And they can't care less about the suffering of Syria's children as long as it can be used against Assad and Russia. And they know for sure that BBC will support them in this evil method. Moreover, it could beargued that BBC together with other Western media themselves have invited muslim terrorists to this form of child abuse.
Is Michelle Obama US most bigoted and hypocritical woman?
Her records may speak for themselves. She sat for some 20 years (TWENTY YEARS) with her husband listening to one of US worst racist supremacist preacher - only stopping because it didn't look great in her husband's presidential campaign.Now she, like BBC, generalizes about Trump and women when to our knowledge Trump has never said what sharia islam always has said, i.e. that women are inferior to men.
All the Trump hate is nothing else than a smoke cover to avoid the real issue for US women: Their low status in the US Constitution, which gaping legal hole invites for sexist sharia.
Klevius is pretty sure that Donald Trump at this time and age, and after this enormous smear campaign, would be a much better advocate for women's rights than sharia supporting Saudi steered Hillary Clinton.
Will US adopt Sharia before/instead of
an Equal Rights Amendment?
US women have less rights than most women in the civilized world. And this is precisely because of a fanatic religious strain that has kept US women strangled by sexism. The countries first to give women full freedom and equality in a meaningful way were those in Fennoscandia (Nordic countries). And what was common to them all was Atheism (we're not talking abt Communist "atheism" here but Human Rights equality for all) and the lack of powerful religious fundamentalism. Against this background it's a pity that OIC's "islamophobia" campaign has again started to undermine women's freedom in the Nordic countries.
Klevius wrote:
Friday, March 08, 2013
Klevius on women's day: The worst ever "president" paves the way for OIC/Sharia in a US where women still have less rights than former male slaves had long ago!
US' women locked in inequality* - and a "president" whose Shariagate may keep them there forever
* No, the US Constitution still doesn't guarantee women equal rights with men, although most women are quite unaware of it.
Jane Fonda: Stop violence against women!
Klevius: Islam is (and has been for some 1400 years) the worst institution for violence/rapetivism against girls/women!
Will US adopt Sharia before/instead of
an Equal Rights Amendment?
US is one of very few civilized countries were women are still not equal to men. Just as they were among the very last to get the right to vote. Compare this to Finland (the land where both men and women are 'hän'*) which was first in the world to give its ladies full franchise.
* Sweden has also proposed to use a unisex pronoun instead of 'han'/'hon' (he/she) but why on Earth have they settled for stupid 'hen' when it would have been much more natural to use the Finnish 'hän', especially considering that the Finnish language is also part of Sweden's history (see Kvenland/Queenland, the home of the Goths). And the vowel ä is used in both languages!
The reason for the US' backwardness is of course religious sex segregation. And with muslim born (apostate?!) Mr X "president" Barry Barakeh Barack Hussain Obama Dunham Soetoro (or whatever) applauding islamofascism and with a majority of the Supreme Court being Catholics, and with the administration full of Sharia enthusiasts, the future for US girls/women seems equally dark as for truly free women in Hollywood productions.
The weird formula behind the denial of islam's crystal clear evilness explained by Klevius
First of all, never trust a religious "scholar". Then consider the following nonsense, which is actually quite racist:
'Muslims and islamic countries may be evil or backward but islam is always good'.
'Let's not look at evilness in islam but rather focus on what we may share'.
Klevius comment: Reminds me of my former friend Max Scharnberg (when he hinted he'd be a suicide bomber if he only had the courage to do it, I immediately finished our friendship) to whom I presented Hitler's Nationalsocialist party program after having erased the mentioning of Jews and some few too revealing words. After having read the text Max Scharnberg thought it was a Social-democratic party program.
In other words, if assessed with the same tools as islam, the Nazi program would have easily found lots of points for "mutual understanding" and "tolerance".
Klevius suggestion: Only focus on the evil parts of islam, i.e. those parts which collide with Human Rights and which constituted the only reason why the most powerfyl muslim world organization, Saudi based OIC, replaced them with Sharia (the so called Cairo declaration).
There is no future for islam because the very essence of islam is precisely those parts were it differs from basic Human Rights (the so called negative Human Rights). And an imaginary "reformed" islam castrated from politics and legislation etc would be of no interest neither for Klevius or for true (Sharia) muslims.
Read Klevius - your intellectual bedrock in a confused world!
Klevius wrote:
Thursday, March 08, 2012
Klevius on Women's Day: If you respect islam then you don't respect women's Human Rights!
Klevius comment: Obama hence also supports Kony's LRA via Bashir.
Some old news (1870) from the same area and same islam
S W Baker: It is impossible to know the actual number of slaves taken from Central Africa annually; but I should imagine that at least fifty thousand are
positively either captured and held in the various zareebas (or camps)
or are sent via the White Nile and the various routes overland by Darfur
and Kordofan. The loss of life attendant upon the capture and subsequent
treatment of the slaves is frightful. The result of this forced
emigration, combined with the insecurity of life and property, is the
withdrawal of the population from the infested districts. The natives
have the option of submission to every insult, to the violation of their
women and the pillage of their crops, or they must either desert their
homes and seek independence in distant districts, or ally themselves
with their oppressors to assist in the oppression of other tribes. Thus
the seeds of anarchy are sown throughout Africa, which fall among tribes
naturally prone to discord. The result is horrible confusion,--distrust
on all sides,--treachery, devastation, and ruin.
It appeared that slavery and the slave trade of theWhite Nile were institutions almost necessary to the existence of
Egyptian society.
It was obvious to all observers that an attack upon the slave-dealing
and slave-hunting establishments of Egypt by a foreigner--an
Englishman--would be equal to a raid upon a hornets' nest, that all
efforts to suppress the old-established traffic in negro slaves would be
encountered with a determined opposition, and that the prime agent and
leader of such an expedition must be regarded "with hatred, malice, and
all uncharitableness." At that period (1869) the highest authorities
were adverse to the attempt. An official notice was despatched from the
British Foreign Office to the Consul-General of Egypt that British
subjects belonging to Sir Samuel Baker's expedition must not expect the
support of their government in the event of complications. The
enterprise was generally regarded as chimerical in Europe, with
hostility in Egypt, but with sympathy in America.
It was freely stated that an Englishman was placed in
command because an Egyptian could not be relied upon to succeed, but
that the greed of new territory was the actual and sole object of the
expedition, and that the slave-trade would reappear in stupendous
activity when the English personal influence should be withdrawn. Such
unsympathetic expressions must have been a poor reward to the Khedive
for his efforts to win the esteem of the civilized world by the
destruction of the slave-trade in his own dominions.
Few persons have considered the position of the Egyptian ruler when
attacking the institution most cherished by his people. The employment
of an European to overthrow the slave-trade in deference to the opinion
of the civilized world was a direct challenge and attack upon the
assumed rights and necessities of his own subjects. The magnitude of the
operation cannot be understood by the general public in Europe. Every
household in Upper Egypt and in the Delta was dependent upon slave
service; the fields in the Soudan were cultivated by slaves; the women
in the harems of both rich and middle class were attended by slaves; the
poorer Arab woman's ambition was to possess a slave; in fact, Egyptian
society without slaves would be like a carriage devoid of wheels--it
could not proceed.
In the year 1870 the slave-hunting of Central Africa was condemned.
Since that time Englishmen have been honoured with the special attention
of the Khedive, and have been appointed to posts of the highest
confidence. European tribunals were established in the place of consular
jurisdiction, British government officials have been invited to reform
the financial administration, and Mr. Rivers Wilson has been induced to
accept the responsible office of Minister of Finance. Nubar Pacha has
been recalled to office, and he must regard with pride the general
confidence occasioned throughout Europe by his reappointment. The
absolute despotism hitherto inseparable from Oriental ideas of
government has been spontaneously abrogated by the Khedive, who has
publicly announced his determination that the future administration
shall be conducted by a council of responsible ministers.
I found lands varying in natural capabilities according to their
position and altitudes--where sugar, cotton, coffee, rice, spices, and
all tropical produce might be successfully cultivated; but those lands
were without any civilized form of government, and "every man did what
seemed right in his own eyes."
In this dislocated state of society, the slave trade prospered to the
detriment of all improvement. Rich and well-populated countries were
rendered desolate; the women and children were carried into captivity;
villages were burnt, and crops were destroyed or pillaged; the
population was driven out; a terrestrial paradise was converted into an
infernal region; the natives who were originally friendly were rendered
hostile to all strangers, and the general result of the slave trade
could only be expressed in one word--"ruin."
The slave hunters and traders who had caused this desolation were for
the most part Arabs, subjects of the Egyptian government.
These people had deserted their agricultural occupations in the Soudan
and had formed companies of brigands in the pay of various merchants of
Khartoum. The largest trader had about 2,500 Arabs in his pay, employed
as pirates or brigands, in Central Africa. These men were organized
after a rude military fashion, and armed with muskets; they were divided
into companies, and were officered in many cases by soldiers who had
deserted from their regiments in Egypt or the Soudan.
Klevius wrote:
Sunday, March 27, 2016
The Devil's pact
How 1.6 Billion "muslims" are used as a single tool to feed the Saudi "guardians of islam".
The "close ally" the Saudi dictator family's spread of religious hatred can convincingly be traced to the muslim terrorist attacks in France and Belgium because Belgium from which they departed, in 1974, a year after the oil crisis, bowed the Saudi dictator family's demand to "respect" and "tolerate" islamofascism.
However, long before that occasion the Saudi dictator family has, as with so many other countries, thoroughly tied up a disastrous islamofascist relationship with Belgium "based on mutual respect and common interests and non-interference in the internal affairs of each other". In other wordds tolerating islamofascism.
Belgian Embassy in Jeddah (where OIC's Human Rights violating sharia headquarter recides) opened in 1954 at a level of chargé d' affaires. The first ambassador of Belgium was Ronald Watteeuw in 1964, and the first ambassador of the Saudi dictator family to Brussels was Fouad Nazer a year earlier in 1963. Mohamed Hamza Charara followed him in 1972, Ibrahim Bakr in 1982, Abdallah Al Mouallimi in 2007 and Faycal Trad in 2011. Abdulrahman Alahmed started on 18 February 2014 as the Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Saudi dictator family to Belgium, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, to the European Union and to the European Society of Atomic Energy.
The official exchange between the Saudi dictator family and Belgium at the highest levels, started by the visit of the islamofascist "king" Abdul Aziz Al-Saud in 1967. Due to a visit of King of Belgium Baudouin, a piece of land was given to the muslim community where the Saudi steered and influenced Islamic and Cultural Centre in Brussels has been established, and is considered one of the most important islamic centers in Europe.
Eight high-level Belgian economic and trade missions visited Saudi Arabia in the years 1967,1974,1975,1982,1993,2002,2009 and the most recently one was the economic and trade mission to Saudi Arabia headed by Princess Astrid in March 2014. More than 350 economic and trade participants accompanied her. During the mission, several contracts and agreements have been signed between businesspersons from both Saudi and Belgian sides.
In Riyadh on March 16, 2014 a memorandum of "understanding" was signed pertaining political consultations between the Foreign Ministries of the Saudi dictator family and Belgium. It was signed by "prince" Saud Al Faisal, Minister of Foreign Affairs on behalf of the Saudi dictator family and by Mr. Didier Reynders, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign and European Affairs on behalf of Belgium.
Saudi based and steered OIC with its sharia Fuhrer, Saudi dictator family member Iyad Madani.
Klevius advice if you are so stupid so you don't trust Klevius: If you don't know about OIC and its Human Rights violating sharia declaration via UN and how this sharia is connected both to sharia finance from London to the Islamic State etc. then please look it up for yourself!
No comments:
Post a Comment