The vicious snake

Trump's winning slogan: "I think islam hates us" can be translated: Islam hates Human Rights as much as rape accused islamofascist Alwaleed bin Talal hates Trump!

BBC Radio 4 News today "discussed  anti-semitism" because of muslim Labour MP Naz Shah's proposal to deport all Jews to the US. However, every person BBC gave airtime used the opportunity to equate "islamophobia" . Couldn't

The scars Muhammad* produced on the Jews in Medina have not been treated.

* According to muslim "scholars". However, for a historically true (albeit equally bloody) history about islam, read Klevius).

Klevius question to BBC: Couldn't BBC find anyone capable of seeing the difference between a worldwide 1.6 billion muslim Umma nation (OIC) and the Jewish Holocaust victims - today represented by less than 10 million believing Jews scattered over the world - except extremely rare in muslim countries.

Most "islamophobes", incl. Klevius, limit their criticism of islam and muslims to where islam (e.g. Saudi based and steered OIC) violate and offend the most basic of Human Rights. That this "islamophobia" inevitably reveals the evilness (measured by basic Human Rights standards) of  islam is not a product of "islamophobes" but of islam itself.


Labour's anti-Semitism crisis

    February 16 2016

    Oxford University Labour Club co-chair resigns after claiming that its members have "some kind of problem with Jews" and sympathise with terrorist groups like Hamas.
    March 6

    Two former shadow Cabinet ministers, Michael Dugher MP and Rachel Reeves MP, accuse Jeremy Corbyn of trying to “bury” the Party’s problem with anti-Semitism after refusing to publish an investigation into harassment of Jewish students at Oxford University.
    March 15

    Vicki Kirby, the vice chair of the Labour’s Woking branch is suspended after tweeting that Jews have “big noses” and “slaughter the oppressed”. MPs attacked the Party leadership after they initially refused to suspend her.
    March 16

    Jeremy Newmark, national chair of the Jewish Labour Movement, says Jeremy Corbyn is "impotent” in his failure to tackle a resurgence of anti-Semitic views
    March 20

    Labour peer Lord Levy threatens to leave his party unless Jeremy Corbyn publicly rejects antisemitic comments made by party members.
    March 25

    Labour Chancellor John McDonnell says he wants to take a “harder line” against anti-Semitism, adding that anyone making anti-Semitic remarks should be thrown out of the party
    April 2

    President of the Board of Deputies of British Jews warns that Jeremy Corbyn is "failing to lead" Labour away from a damaging trend of anti-Semitism
    April 10

    Labour councillor Aysegul Gurbuz is suspended over a series of anti-Semitic tweets in which she praised Hitler as the “greatest man in history” and said she hoped Iran would use a “nuclear weapon” to “wipe Israel off the map”.
    April 27

    Labour MP Naz Shah is suspended after backing calls for Israel to “relocate” to America. She had resigned as an aide to the Party’s shadow chancellor the previous day, but Jeremy Corbyn was criticised by MPs for initially declining to suspend her from the party whip.
    April 28

    Ken Livingstone becomes embroiled in the row. In a BBC interview he defends Naz Shah, saying, "I’ve never heard anybody say anything anti-Semitic, but there’s been a very well-orchestrated campaign by the Israel lobby to smear anybody who criticises Israeli policy as anti-Semitic."

    The resulting outcry leads to his suspension from the Labour party.

Did Ted Cruz dig his own grave by choosing someone not understanding the difference between Chinese and sharia muslims?

 

Carly Fiorina said she would be “fine” with a sharia muslim serving as President of the United States.

“I think it’s a problem with all kinds of cultures, and certainly, it has been a culture with some Muslims, but I also think that right now, honestly, Sean, if I may say, because of Donald Trump’s comments, we’re talking about all of the wrong things. What we need to be talking about right now, is what are the practical steps that can be taken to protect the homeland right now?

“Well, certainly we know that Sharia Law is counter to our Constitution and way of life. On the other hand, it’s true that people in many parts of the world, who are not Muslim also believe in very objectionable things. In China, for example, so many babies are aborted or left to die through exposure simply because they’re female. So, does that mean we have to worry about every Chinese who wants to become an American citizen?”



Jimmy Fallon: “Ben Carson is in a lot trouble now because he’s saying he would not advocate a Muslim being president,” he said.

“Well, I think that’s wrong,” Fiorina responded.

“You know, it says in our Constitution that religion cannot be a test for office,” she continued. “It is also true that this country was founded on the principle that we judge each individual and that anyone of any faith is welcome here.”

As Fiorina and fellow candidate Sen. Ted Cruz have pointed out, Article VI of the Constitution states: “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States".


Klevius: Sharia islam isn't a religion in any sense of the Constitution. And islam without BASIC Human Rights violating sharia isn't islam. Nor are there any real muslims who abandon sharia.

Is sharia islam's wannabe London mayor a coward or a lier?

Why didn't Sadiq Khan condemn UK sharia courts?

Sayeeda Warsi, UK's muslim sharia messenger to OIC etc. with PM Cameron who appointed her but later seems to have fallen out with her.


Klevius: If there is only one islam then that islam must inevitably be the one that follows Saudi based and steered OIC's sharia declaration in UN, i.e. as much against UN's own most basic Human Rights, agreed on after we (the civilized world) had morally defeated fascism last time it emerged, that you can ever imagine.

All people are individuals and most people belong firstly to a small network of family and/or friends - not religion/"faiths". So why all this mess about "faith" all the time?! Because "faith" in this non-individual sense is all about politics and power. And in the case of sharia islam, added with institutionalized anti Human Rights pure evil racism and sexism.

For those readers who didn't really understood the previous posting about Humpreys interview with sharia muslim Sadiq Khan:

John Humphrys: So to be quite clear - you would do your best to close them (sharia courts) down where they exist?

Sadiq Khan: There are issues about how these sharia courts are working that need some working.

Klevius: "Issues that need some working" - but not shutting them down! That would be against sharia islam - the only islam that "islamophobes" equal with racist and sexist fascism. Shutting down sharia courts would not "need some working".

From finance to islamism

"Combating anti-islamic rhetoric" = supporting basic (negative) Human Rights violating sharia islam!

The heart of Britain is choosing between sharia islamofascism and -  sharia isalmofascism

Soon London will have its first islamofascist (i.e. sharia) Mayor  -. and if he wouldn't win (which is extremely unlikely considering how he is supported by Labour), a Jew would step in and defend muslims sharia islam.

Isn't it remarkable how far British "diversity" politics has come. One sixth of UK (and much more when it comes to influence) will be steered by someone representing a tiny minority of the population. And in the case of Khan, someone who represents values (sharia) that according to the soon previous Mayor Boris Johnson "is absolutely unacceptable in the UK".

It was Jews and Jewish Christians who let loose the bloodthirsty illiterate Arab speaking Bedouins (see Ibn-Khaldun, islam's main historian) and copied the Roman system of enslaving, taxing, and segregating themselves from those "dhimmis" who were colonized (see the Roman garrison practice). 

Historically Jews (incl. Jewish believers in Jesus) have always paved the way for islamofascist conquest. The first on being in Medina where eventually Muhammad slaughtered and raped all the Jews.



Klevius wrote:

Tuesday, March 8, 2016

Klevius (the world's foremost authority on sex apartheid - sad isn't it) to all the world's women on women's day: Here's your main enemy exemplified as a timid "mosque mouse"!

Sharia islam is never good for your Human Rights if you are a woman. But willing whores and deceptive but off the point talks may well lure many women still.

 But the more important question is: Can you as a woman face your own sex apartheid history fully?

The origin of islam was plundering and raping booty jihad along Jewish slave trade routes. 

 Here's an approximate map of Judaism (i.e. essentially Judaic slave trade) just before the origin of islam.

And below an approximate map of the violent muslim colonization in the foot steps of the Jewish slave trade routes.

 The above maps could be almost identical if produced with same techniques. This is no coincident but due to the "mysterious" code (the Jews) that made Arab imperialism possible and historical analysis impossible ("mysterious") if not included.  

Except for Khazaria, Jews were more business orientated than eager to waive swords compared to their copycats the Arab Bedouins. However, without wealthy and influential Jews leading the bloodthirsty and illiterate Bedouins (compare Ibn-Khaldun's description) and paving the way for the Arab looters (compare how the Jews used Turkic people in Khazaria in pretty much the same manner) the "Arab conquest" would have quickly dried out in the Arabian sand.

Dear reader. When reading Klevius analysis of the origin of islam, do always keep in mind the following important facts:

1 There was no Koran - only some Jewish/Christian text manipulations.

2  There was no Muhammad - only the old Jewish Messias (the rescuer/saver/leader) myth. Muhammad as described by muslims is a later invention snd doesn't appear in any official documents whatsoever before Malik.

3  Conventional "descriptions" of the "Arab conquest" are impossible and leave historians "amazed". Instead looting, booty, and sex slaves were the main incentives for the Bedouins. What was new was a more tight racist system of "we-and-the-other" which hindered (for a time) hindered internal divisions. On top of this was the Dhimmitude taxation system under the sword.

4 Understanding these point is also understanding that islam originated as a parasite and therefore never functioned as inspiration in itself for innovations etc. This is why every islamic colony has ended in bachwardness. Africa is an example of how a parasitic ideology was able to drain a whole continent.


Klevius will tell you much more later. Keep tuned and excited!

A little, timidly nonsense speaking Swedish "reformist" Shia muslim "professor"* who rides on the non-muslim world's longing for "nice muslims".

* Klevius uses 'professor' only re. scientific researchers. Mixing in a "god" isn't science.

Whereas few women believe in the Islamic State, some morons still believe in the oxymoron "reformed islam". To understand the impossibility of a civilized islam one only has to go to its evil origin (as Klevius has done since 9/11). And if you for some strange reason don't want to listen to the world's foremost expert on sex apartheid - and therefore also islam -just take a closer lookj to what BBC and others don't want to talk about.

And you may laugh this Saudi billionaire hoodlum away as a Saudi joke but then you miss the very point, namely that:

1 OIC's sharia includes both the Saudi sharia as well as any other sharia that fulfills the lofty definition of the Cairo declaration.

2 The main reason (except for protecting the Saudi and other muslim nations medieval systems) for OIC's sharia declaration was that the 1948 Universal* Human Rights Declaration gives women full equality with men, which fact made it impossible for islam in whatever sharia form.

* There's a dumb view presented for even dumber people that the UN declaration was "Western made" and therefore biased. Nothing could be more wrong. The paper and the pen may have been "Western made" but the content is from scratch made deliberately "non-Western" i.e. universal. Educate yourself!

Unlike many other forms of sexism, muslim sexism is pure racism: Muslim women in every single variant of possible sharia islam are always treated as "the other".


A Shia muslim that is on the extreme fringe of Shia muslims and not even considered a muslim by the majority of the world's Sunni muslims, incl, most muslim so called "scholars".


A pathetic and disgusting Human Rights denier who "accuses" basic and universal Human Rights for being bad "because they came out of the West". Ok, cars etc. also came out of the West and yes, he could blame them for some pollution etc. and call it "post-colonialism". But how on earth could you possibly deny the logic of the negative (basic) Human Rights, or deny them because they "came out of the West". Well the reason "they came out of the West" is that the islam contaminated parts of the world didn't give them a chance to come out there.


So is he an outright lier trying to camouflage islam's incompatibility with the most basic of Human Rights- or is he, like so many muslims, incredibly dumb/ignorant/brainwashed?

Mohammad Fazlhashemi, professor in islamism (aka "islamic theology") and filosophy (sic)* at Uppsala University in Sweden: There are some essential norms in the Koran that can be used to protect human dignity in different ways depending on time and cisrumstances.

* As Wittgenstein already pointed out, philosophy is a difficult discipline even without trying to squeeze in a God scheme in it. And even more so when the "God" is totally out of reach and only exists as differing human "interpretations".


Klevius: "Protecting" women from having access to full Human Rights? And "human dignity" should be read "muslim male dignity" added by the important "who is interpreted as being a true muslim" which could, as we all know, vary quite a lot among muslims. Moreover, what about the dignity of non-muslims? Either you let muslims "interpret" it or you skip islam alltogether, because here lies the real difference between Human Rights that gives every Atheist or whatever person (even muslims) equal rights, and sharia islam which openly violates these rights, as can be seen, for example, in Saudi based and steered OIC's (all muslim's main world organization) official abandoning of Human Rights in UN. Mohammad Fazlhashemi, professor in islamism (aka "islamic theology") and racist/sexist "muslimn filosophy" can't possibly be unaware of OIC, the muslim world's biggest and most important institution, can he!

Mohammad Fazlhashemi: That islam is good can be proved by comparing it to the illiterate Arab speaking bedouins.

Klevius: Is that really a good enough standard as reference?

Mohammad Fazlhashemi: There's no logical connection between a muslim's belief and a muslim's rights.

Klevius: Apart from the fact that most muslims completely disagree with you, why do you then keep asking for muslim's rights? Why should muslim's have special rights because of their "beliefs"?


And here's this small minded muslim reformist's Shia source:

Mohammad Mojtahed Shabestari: I do not call for a separation of politics and religion. Of course there should be cooperation between them.

Klevius: Cooperation between Human Rights violating sharia and politicians representing Human Rights doesn't sound very reformist, does it.

From an interview with Mohammad Mojtahed Shabestari (spiced with Klevius comments): The way of life in Medina and Mecca was quite simple. But what took place then cannot be a model for today's world. Nowadays, Muslims live in intelligent social systems, in which there is a wide diversity of institutions. This requires us to develop a proper plan with the aid of reason. This is not something that can be derived from the Koran.

Klevius: At least he seems to admit that the slaughtering of all the Jews in Medina wasn't a good "model". Or did he mean something else? The muslim booty and sex jihad?

"During its Golden Age, Islam was known for highly controversial and pluralistic debates. Today, the reality in many Muslim countries is quite different. There is little freedom of thought.. What can be done to promote more freedom of thought in Muslim countries?"

Klevius: The "golden age" was just the same as today, i.e. muslims sponging on resources they haven't themselves created. Slaves back then - oil and Western welfare today. More than 90% of the economy in Andalus was based on slavery - fully in line with islam's original enslavement formula: "Infidels" (i.e. non-muslims and women) could be enslaved because Muhammad had heard Allah (via an angel though) saying so.

Shabestari: Freedom of experession all depends on whether a people has politically developed to such an extent that it understands what freedom is. Then it will demand freedom of expression. Even now there is a great tendency towards freedom in Islamic countries. Yet, why it hasn't truly developed is another question. This has to do with political hurdles and the system of government in these countries. It is more of a cultural difficulty than a difficulty related to Islam or religion in general. Unfortunately, this is a retrograde cultural reality.

Klevius: Admittedly Hillary Clinton's sharia campaign against freedom of expression represents "a retrograde cultural reality". However, how could it possibly not be directly connected to islam itself when she works for the world's biggest and most fundamental islam representing organization, the Saudi based and steered OIC?!

"The Arab protest movements are associated by many people, both within these countries and also abroad, with the hope for democracy. Others (muslims) say that Islam fundamentally forbids democracy."

Klevius: Yet it's all islam and muslims - no matter what it stands for. As a consequence it encompasses both the most evil of muslims as well as those "muslims" who can't be distinguished from non-muslims other than by name. And this state of affairs is of course most handy for the most evil of muslims.

Islam's willing whores - a threat to women's Human Rights equality

As it stands now a woman, Hillary Clinton, is by far the worst option for the freedom and emancipation of US women. Hillary not only approves of sharia blasphemy laws but also of sharia as over ruling women's full Human Rights (just check OIC's sharia declaration).

Klevius question to geneticists: Why is Klevius so intelligent?

Read how climate change made human evolution possible in SE Asian volatile archipelago - not on a continent like Africa. 

Read Peter Klevius opposite reading and correction of Greenland data compared to researchers biased with climate hysteria.

Read how two craniopagus twins born 2006 solved the "greatest mystery in science" - and proved Peter Klevius theory from 1992-94 100% correct.

Here's what Klevius forgot to mention in his CV to BBC - which CV he actually never sent because Klevius "islamophobia" would have made it inappropriate anyway.

Some clues* to why you should take Klevius more seriously and many biased and quite dumb academic "peers" less seriously.

* other clues being: no particular academic, religious, financial or emotional bias.

Top left: Olof Kinnmark, down left: Kirsti Armasdotter Kotilainen, right: Klevius.

mtDNA HV0 HVSI C16298T V7a1? C16298T mutation detected in ancient DNA obtained from one of nineteen human remains excavated on the island of Gotland, Sweden, dated to 2.800 -2.000 BC?
In Demand for Resources (1992:28 ISBN 9173288411) Klevius suggested that Northern Eurasia might have been crucial to the evolution of modern humans - possibly even its "cradle". This theory came about after Klevius had learned a lot more about the Khoi-San people of southern Africa. Klevius called his theory Out of Africa as Pygmies and back as global Mongoloids.

However, it was only after the publication of the discovery of Homo floresiensis (2004) and the Denisova bracelet and Denisovan genome (2010) that the picture got really coherent.

Personally Klevius had always wondered about having too big teeth for his mouth while his mother had even bigger teeth yet managed to harbour them. Back then, long before any genetics was available, Klevius assumed that his mother had some Sami/Mongoloid traces. This was confirmed after a DNA test 2015.

yDNA (Fatherline)     I-M253 - I-S438 (lineage S438 marker, but no subtypes of S438, is very rare)

mtDNA mtDNA (Motherline)     HV0 HVSI C16298T

It's quite common to laugh at presumably biased anthropologists from the past - especially if they were "white" or "European" or "Westerners". However, a much more interesting and useful task is to search for today's bias. Klevius scientific methodology rests entirely on a relentless pursuit of self-criticism (the only truly scientific approach) which makes Klevius an utterly humble not to say laughable person but his revelations at least honest and hence well suited for targeting bias from moderately intelligent but highly subjective (or bribed) academics. Klevius intellectual heritage (father was Sweden's best chess player, both uncle's were Finland's top CEOs and sister scored highest in IBM's IQ test - also consider EMAH) doesn't hurt either. Moreover, although Bourdieu wasn't especially intelligent (his Masculine Domination is extremely shy, lame and shallow compared to Klevius take on sex segregation) his notes on the scholastic fallacy, Homo academicus and the theory of the theoretical point of view may have some bearing here for those who think it's more fancy to read Bourdieu than Klevius.

Klevius is a rarity, namely a truly humble (i.e. self-critical) scientist - not a simple researcher. Klevius masters all main scientific methodologies and methods and has added several by himself. Klevius only "mentor" was Georg Henrik von Wright whose mentor was Ludvig Wittgenstein.

Klevius also happens to have a twofold biological advantage: More IQ than 99,99% of the world's researchers/scientists (father was Sweden's best chess player and mother produced - with a less intelligent father - Klevius half-sister and IBM's European IQ test winner at IQ 167), and a perfectly balanced biochemistry. The latter meaning he is emotionally reliable, never has experienced depression, migraine, hallucinations, uncontrolled behavior etc. nor has he ever needed drugs to "fly" emotionally or sexually. No one, incl. himself, has seen him depressed or hysteric or "burnt down", nor has anyone, incl, himself. seen him "failing" sexually or otherwise. So unless these kind of human weaknesses are considered important for dealing with science, Klevius seems quite well prepared to be read seriously, or what do you think, dear reader. And of course these kind of statements are extremely embarrassing, but what can you possibly do when low IQ PhDs/professors contaminate the web with preposterous defense about utterly bad science by dismissing proper criticism as "not peer reviewed" or "not cited" etc. thereby hiding bad science behind academic formalism which, as we all know, more often than not is steered by funds and personal bias (there's always an appointed "top" professor behind the citation cartel in use). For more on this important topic read Klevius Demand for Resources (1992:36-44, ISBN9173288411) - especially the chapter Science and References. Sadly, today we have also "PhD's" and professors in evil occultism performed by brainwashed religious fanatics posing as "science" and "scientists".

Finally, when it comes to moral and social issues, Klevius relies on the axiomatic logic of (negative) basic and universal Human Rights as seen in the 1948 Human Rights Declaration. In other words, Klevius is against sexism and racism - and therefore against islam.

BBC today fulfilled every fascist's dream. Was it because of deliberate bias (to protect Human Rights violating sharia islam) or just bottomless stupidity?!

BBC: Are Human Rights (1948) really universal?

Klevius: This very question tries to blink the universal morality of negative basic Human Rights, i.e. the right to be freed from impositions. whereas "positive" rights (the so called Stalin rights) can be more or less impositional, the negative rights are like the general traffic rule that no matter who you are or whatever you drive or not driving at all, you are considered to have equal rights with everyone else. Whereas sharia traffic rules would mean that women and other non-muslims would have to follow different rules, the basis for normal traffic rules is the negative right when, where and what you like as long as you do it following rules that apply to all similarly.

And contrary to BBC's view negative Human Rights are equal to an other laws or rules when it comes to enforcement. So even if you can't possibly stop all accidents through enforcement, the main point is to signal either equality before the law or something else.

When sharia friendly BBC 4 with their muslim sharia presenter Mishal Husain (who also eagerly wants to get EU citizens more easily deported) report about sexual violence and sexual bullying they "forgot" to mention that it was almost entirely girls who were the victims. 

A YouGov poll of 16-18 year olds taken in 2010 found 29% of girls had experienced unwanted sexual touching at school and 71% said they frequently heard sexual name-calling towards girls at school.

Director of the End Violence Against Women Coalition, Sarah Green, welcomed the first parliamentary inquiry into the problem.

"This behaviour is endemic and it stops girls feeling safe and achieving their best at school.

"When teachers and school leaders do not challenge sexual harassment, boys and girls observe and learn that sexual harassment is acceptable. Girls learn that they are supposed to put up with it in school and beyond, while boys are given a message that they can get away with it. It is likely to create a context where more serious assaults are both more likely to happen and less likely to be reported,"

Complaints of sexual offences in UK schools over a three year period, including 600 alleged rapes.

Klevius has reported for decades in articles, interviews, scientific papers etc. for several decades and on the web for more than a decade about this problem in Swedish schools and elsewhere. And he has early on realized to connect the increase to the influences of sexist islam.


Klevius question: Does it really need Klevius amount of IQ to address these kind of problems?! For Klevius himself it feels like using a Samurai sword to slice a cucumber...

The evil venom that is even worse* than Saddam Hussein's use of weapons of mass destruction against his own people.

* Islam has murdered, raped, enslaved and robbed much more than Saddam Hussein was ever capable of - even with the help of his poisonous weapons of mass destruction.

Bush father freed Kuwait from the islamofascist muslim dictator in Iraq - but to what avail?

Kuwaiti Professor of Philosophy Sheikha Al-Jassem at Kuwait University is under investigation for blasphemy after saying, in a March 8 show on the Kuwaiti Al-Shahed TV channel, that "anyone who believes that the Koran, or the sharia, or the interpretations of these religious texts are above the constitution is betraying the state of Kuwait." Al-Jassem had made a plea for keeping religion separate from politics. Saying that "every religion gets hijacked at some point by the politicians," she stressed that the source of authority should be the constitution and said that placing the Koran above the constitution was "the undoing of our democratic regime."

Klevius comment: When should we hear BBC's muslim sharia presenter Mishal Husain and the muslim leaders in Britain dare to say thge same?!

Klevius fact reminder:

Bush mission in Iraq was to topple Saddam Hussein - and he accomplished it in a week and with less casualties than in any other similar military operation!

The US invasion of Iraq and due toppling of its muslim dictator was probably the most remarkable military achievement ever. We all remember Saddam Hussein's propaganda minister who stood in front of Western media babbling about how their muslim army was "pounding the infidel to submission" while US Abraham tanks entered Baghdad's main square after having traveled through the country.

The 2003 invasion of Iraq took around a week before the US marines had taken over the presidential palace etc important buildings and areas in Baghdad.
Around hundred US soldiers died during the militarily extremely successful campaign - part of which was due to accidents, "friendly fire", illness etc rather than because of Saddam's muslim army.

In May 2003 President Bush declared "mission accomplished", i.e. the toppling of the muslim dictator Saddam Hussein who had murdered over 100,000 of his own people by using weapon of mass destruction i.e. massive gas attacks against the Kurdish population.

Klevius suggestion: Isn't it time to place sharia islam and the evil Koran in Saddam Hussein's palace - which is planned to be a museum?

Bush's biggest mistake was due to his ignorance about the evilness of islam itself and the Saudi dictator family.

Isn't it the most tragic irony that those ignorant Bush haters "for peace" actually supported the murderous Saudi steered and financed insurgency in Iraq that caused the overwhelming part of the casualties and suffering after the toppling of Saddam Hussein. In other words, the Bush haters "for peace" and Bush himself both protected the real evil: islam and its main representative today, the islamofascist Saudi dictator family which continues its murderous campaigns without anyone (except for Putin who at least caused a slight disturbance) doing anything but continues calling this monster "our best ally in the muslim world". But after all, that description may be quite accurate if by "muslim Mideast we mean islamic Mideast.

As a result of Bush's campaign Iraq's first ever free elections were performed on January 30, 2005 to begin the process of writing a constitution. Unfortunately Bush was too ignorant abouyt islam's evilness so he approved of letting sharia islam into the new constitution. It was like


 Klevius wrote:

Friday, January 29, 2010

Blair, Bush, & Rice got Iraq right - but got the lethal islamic murdering jihadism from Saudi Arabia wrong!

The " heartland of islamic evil
This man (& Co) is the main thug behind the blood shed in Iraq!

House of Saud", Mr X "president's" beloved muslim brothers, has always targeted Shia muslims, no matter if it's Iran, Iraq or Yemen! They strongly supported Saddam Hussein's 8 yr long war against Iran. Then, after the US marine's one week flash conquering of Baghad/Iraq, the Saudi Caliph started his deadly islamic insurgency campaign resulting in mass murder of Iraqis, US & Brits, as well as others.

Blaming Blair, Bush & Rice for this Saudi islamofascism (via Syria etc) is extremely naive & misleading!

The big mistake was that Blair, Bush & Rice didn't go to Riyadh! I.e. the same mistake as those who now criticize them!




Klevius wrote:

Thursday, June 11, 2015

Klevius definition of islam: The faith refuge for racism and sexism (sharia) that can't pass the Human Rights test

Why do we allow* muslims to support Human Rights violating sharia?! Who else could get away with that without being criticized?!

* Under Human Rights people can anyway make consensual agreements but under sharia that is not an option because sharia is supposed to be "allah's" "will".

If you remove the racist and sexist parts of islam you are left with a castrated and crippled ideology and, Klevius would guess, with few, if any, (sharia) followers. It was precisely these evil parts that fueled the origin of islam and now keep Saudi and IS islamofascism ticking.

Islam is a Jewish religion that is 100% penis steered, i.e. muslim men are considered superior to women and therefore muslimhood is defined by the muslim father.

BBC's "expert" Emma Sky today proposes civil war in Iraq.

According to Emma Sky, Iraq could have developed much better and avoided the Islamic State, had it not been for Obama's 2010 withdrawal of the successful miltary surge Georg W Bush activated in 2007. Emma Sky says she doesn't think the Sunni/Shia divide was important because "there were anyway already 30% intermarriages between Sunni and Shia muslims in Iraq".

Klevius: Apparently Emma Sky doesn't know the most basic fact of islam, i.e. that it's the most elaborate ideology of racism and sexism. There could never exist "intermarriages" in islam simply because it's always the male muslim who decides, both personally and ideologically, whether the family is Sunni or Shia.

Countries where Saudi Arabia has caused enormous blood bath and suffering

Iraq

Islam 99% (Shia 70%-75%, Sunni 22%-27%), Christianity 0.8%, Mandaeism and other less than 1%.

While there has been voluntary relocation of many Christian families to northern Iraq, recent reporting indicates that the overall Christian population may have dropped by as much as 50 percent since the fall of the Saddam Hussein regime in 2003, with many fleeing to Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon (2010 estimate). The percentage of Christians has fallen from 6% in 1991 or 1.5 million to about one third of this, due to massive exodus - two-thirds of Assyrian Christians have fled to other countries in the Middle East, Europe, United States and Canada.

Yemen

Religion in Yemen consists primarily of two principal Islamic religious groups: 53% of the Muslim population is Sunni and over 45% is Shia, according to the UNHCR. Other put the numbers of Shias at 30%.

Bahrain

It is estimated that 60-70% of the Bahrainis follow Shia school, with the remaining third following Sunni Islam. The Al Khalifa ruling family and its supporting tribes are Sunni and are assisted by Saudi military in suppressing the Shia majority.

Saudi Arabia itself suppresses Shia muslims and non-muslims without anyone seeming to react.

An estimated 16 million natives of Saudi Arabia are Shia muslims. The Saud dictator family demand (but not necessarily for themselves) strict Sunni islamic Wahhabism which states that muslims should return to the interpretation of islam found in the Koran and the Sunnah. They also believe that muslims who seek intercession from holy men—such as the Imams Shia revere—are not true muslims. While attempts to force conversion of Shia have been infrequent, Shia have alleged severe discrimination in Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia is also the home for all muslims' world organization OIC which is led by Iyad Madani, an islamofascist belonging to the Saud dictator family.

Calling oneself a true muslim automatically connects to sharia islam, the very opposite to Human Rights - e.g. as stated by all the world's muslims' Saudi based and UN sanctioned sharia organization OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation) and its islamofascist Saudi Fuhrer Iyad Madani.

A consequence of this is that a sharia supporting muslim's vote is undemocratic. OIC's 57 member state voting bloc in UN who supported Human Rights violating sharia as a guidance for muslim legislation all over the world was therefore also undemocratic.

Could there be any doubt that Mishal Husain isn't aware of OIC and its world sharia declaration? After all, it's even on Wikipedia.

Samantha Lewthwaite, Mishal Husain and Michael Adebolajo (who murdered Lee Rigby). Mishal Husain is BBC's top muslim presenter and BBC is the world's leading media. The only thing she needs to say is that she opposes Human Rights violating sharia - and thereby also opposes islam because islam without some form of Human Rights violating sharia is not islam anymore - it's just a private belief and won't bother Klevius a bit.


.

Re. Panama papers BBC Radio 4 News eagerly mentioned Assad, Putin and China but completely forgot the islamofascist Saudi dictator family

Main stream islam (OIC) is dictated by the islamofascist Saudi dictator family, and backed by US (muslim born Obama), UK, France - and BBC. 

The disgusting islamofascist murderous "custodians of islam", the Saudi dictator family, is "the best ally" of some Western politicians - but what about the voters?

Klevius to US voters (especially women): The only candidate openly critical to sharia islam is Donald Trump ("Ithink islam hates us") - and the only candidate openly supportive of sharia islam is Hillary Clinton (resolution 567)!

The islamofascist Saudi dictator family constitute the main world criminals of our time. Scumbags like Alwaleed bin Talat, Iyad Madani etc should should long time since have been arrested and brought to the International Criminal Court together with their close pal Sudan's "president" Bashir.

Do US women really need to bow for islamofascist sharia?

UK blasphemy law in action

IPSO: Islam and mosques can't be cricized or questioned - only individual muslims

 The assistant general secretary of the Muslim Council Miqdaad Versi complained to IPSO (Independent Press Standards Organisation - created after an intensive campaign by BBC) about the accuracy of the Daily Star Sunday article with the headline “UK mosques give cash for terror”. It was also publishned online with the headline “UK mosques fundraising for terror”.

The articles suggested that money was being transferred to Bosnia in order to fund terrorist training camps in the country.

Versi allegedly said: "There is growing islamophobia in the UK today, with more and more people having negative attitudes towards Muslims. In such a climate, it is very important that newspapers are careful in reporting facts accurately. In this case, the newspaper wrongly alleged that UK mosques were fundraising for terror without any evidence.

"Such sensationalism creates real damage as it reinforces an unfounded assumption that mosques across the UK are a problem in our society. I hope that through this correction, isolated incidents can be seen for what they are – actions by fringe elements of society, and not linked to Muslim institutions such as mosques.”

IPSO ruling: Summary of complaint

Decision of the Complaints Committee
11868-15 Versi v Daily Star on Sunday

1. Miqdaad Versi complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that the Daily Star on Sunday breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “UK mosques give cash for terror”, published on 22 November 2015. It was published online with the headline “UK mosques fundraising for terror”.

2. The article reported that one of the newspaper’s journalists had posed as a man wanting to transfer money abroad which he had “raised with the help of a group of Bradford-based Isis sympathisers”. The man he contacted told him that he could assist him with transferring the money to Bosnia, and said that “we get funds from UK brothers from collections at mosques”. The article suggested that money is being transferred to Bosnia in order to fund terrorist training camps there. The text of the article was the same online and in print, only the headlines and sub-headlines differed.

3. The complainant said that the headlines were inaccurate as they suggested that UK mosques, generally, were raising money to fund terrorist activity. In fact, as the article had made clear, it was one group of men in Bradford, and not any mosque as an organisation, that was collecting money. Further, there was no suggestion that the practice was occurring beyond that single group, but the headline had given the impression that the practice was widespread. The statement that UK mosques had been collecting money to fund terrorism had been presented as fact, and not adequately distinguished as the claim of the one person with whom the journalist had been in contact.

4. The newspaper did not believe that the headlines had been significantly inaccurate or misleading. It said that the headlines should be read in conjunction with the text of the article, and in this case the text had made clear that the funding of terrorism by mosques was a claim made by one man. The sub-headline of the print article, “Radical in boasts about whip rounds”, made clear that the statement in the headline above it was the pretension of one individual. Similarly, the sub-headline of the online version of the article stated that “Cash collected in UK mosques is funding terrorism, it was claimed last night”, made clear that this was not established fact.

5. Nonetheless, the newspaper offered to publish the following clarification in a forthcoming edition, on page 2; the original article had appeared on page 9:

“The headline of an article, published on 22 November 2015, stated ‘UK mosques give cash for terror’. We would like to clarify that the headline was based on the claims of radical Isa Amriki that funding for terrorism came from collections at mosques, not by or on behalf of UK mosques, which were not involved in any way.”

6. It also offered to amend the online headline so that it read “Collections at UK mosques ‘fundraising for terror’”, and to append a version of the clarification as a footnote.

7. The complainant requested an opportunity to work with the newspaper in future to avoid repetition of similar inaccuracies, and the opportunity to write a positive story about Muslims. The newspaper declined to resolve the complaint on this basis, and so the complainant asked that the Committee adjudicate on the matter.

Relevant Code Provisions

Clause 1 (Accuracy)

(i) The press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures.

(ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and – where appropriate – an apology published.

(iii) The press, whilst free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.

Findings of the Committee

9. It was accepted by the newspaper that the money was being collected by individuals acting in a personal capacity, and not by mosques as organisations. However, both versions of the headline had given the clear impression that mosques were institutionally raising money for terrorism. The single text message conversation that the journalist had had did not support this assertion. Both the print and online versions of the headline represented a failure to take care over the accuracy of the article, and a breach of Clause 1 (i) of the Code.

10. The headlines were significantly misleading. They gave the impression that the newspaper had discovered serious, organised wrongdoing, when that was not the case, and the inaccuracies required correction under the terms of Clause 1 (ii). The newspaper had already offered to publish a clarification, and the Committee was satisfied that the proposed wording identified the initial inaccuracy and made clear the correct position. In the context of IPSO’s investigation of the complaint, the correction had been offered promptly. The newspaper had also offered to publish the clarification on page 2, when the article had appeared on page 9; this constituted sufficient prominence under the terms of the Code. There was no breach of Clause 1 (ii).

11. The sub-headlines of both versions of the article had made clear that the statement that mosques were raising money for terrorist activity was a “boast” and a “claim”, and the article itself had made clear the basis for that claim. The Committee considered the headlines in their full context, and while the evidence provided in the article did not support the statement in the headlines and the Committee had already established that they were significantly inaccurate, there was no additional failure to distinguish between conjecture and fact in either the headlines or the text of the article; there was no breach of Clause 1 (iii).

Conclusions

12. The complaint was upheld under Clause 1 (Accuracy).

Remedial Action Required

13. The newspaper had already offered to publish a clarification in print, as well as amending the online article and appending the clarification as a footnote. These actions would be sufficient to remedy the established breach of the Code and, in light of the Committee’s decision, they should now be published.

Date complaint received: 07/12/2015
Date decision issued: 31/03/2016

Klevius ruling

Klevius comment: Interestingly IPSO, which was established through the work of a Jew is headed by an other Jew. Why is an "independent" press organization so closely related to islam supporting Jews? Couldn't they really find more secular/independent individuals for such important roles on a matter that to a high degree will encounter religious complaints. After all, islam is based on Judaism and islam is today the main cause of controversies, censorship etc. Or if they really needed Jews in this process, why not Jews critical of islam. There are probably more of them than those positive to islam.

Klevius conclusion: Firstly, "individuals acting in a personal capacity, and not by mosques as organisations" is a pure oxymoron in the case of sharia islam. "Mosques as organizations" constitute the very meeting places for muslims of all sorts. Secondly, as long as there are no efforts made to draw the line between "radical" sharia muslims and Westernized non sharia "muslims", then the generality of mosques apply.

However, the by far most important aspect is totally missing in the ruling, namely that it's a well known fact that UK mosques and madrassas have showed substantial problems living up to the "Westernized islam" mirage, and therefore the underlying criticism in the writings is in line with reality. As a consequence it turns out that it's IPSO's ruling that misses in "accuracy".

Klevius advice: Why don't you (the press) write about the fact that Miqdaad Versi is a sharia muslim who rejects the most basic of the Human Rights Declaration. So how does Klevius know this? He doesn't know it for sure of course because there is always the possibility that Miqdaad Versi lies to other muslims. However, as the assistant general secretary of the Muslim Council in Britain it seems defend able to assume he is a true sharia muslim.

 London will probably (with BBC's keen assistance) get a sharia muslim Mayor this spring - in line with Cameron's wish to make it the world's main sharia hub.

Is the next step to make a sharia muslim the head of IPSO?


All in line with the wishes of UK's "closest ally in the muslim world", the islamofascist Saudi dictator family who harbor and steer the muslim world sharia organization OIC. An organization that has openly opposed the most basic of Human Rights equality.

Why so eagerly push for sharia "blasphemy" censorship when most muslims allegedly aren't "radical" and therefore maybe not that keen on supporting the Sauydi dictator family and sharia islam?!