"A decent fire bomb can islamize a world". This note was found on a toilet at Stockholm University 2006 after someone had flooded the library with water. However, neither the police nor the press said anything about it.
The custodians of islam, the hateful islamofascist Saudi dictator family (incl. Saudi based and steered OIC) has made every effort to silence critics of Saudi's lack of Human Rights, by calling such criticism "islamophobia".
BBC and your politicians keenly follow this perversion - rather than defending Human Rights.
Thanks to Saudi hate mongering Kosovo now seems to be the most hateful European "country" when it comes to views on Shia muslims. Are you listening EU!
In doing so they utilize their position as custodians of islam for all the world's muslims - most of which are only "cultural muslims" hesitant to commit apostasy and/or just using any favor muslimhood may give them - while simultaneously spreading divisive hate.
How come that no matter if the terrorists are muslims or non-muslims, "islamophobia" always gets the blame?!
When islam(ists) attack non-muslims it's not only blamed on the elusive "islamophobia", it also leads to warnings about "islamophobia" because of the attacks. And when the proportionally much rarer attacks happen against muslims, then again it's all because of "islamophobia".
Compare this to Mishal Husain's view on the proportionality of muslims and Jews killed:
Saudi Arabia is the biggest trader in sharia finance, which in turn is connected to Saudi islamofascism.
Could the lives in New Zealand have been saved if media had been more keen on teaching potential terrorists about basic Human Rights? However BBC does its utmost not to do so because it could offend the islamofascist Saudi dictator family.Terrorists don't support Human Rights.
According to himself in his "manifest" the New Zealand terrorist isn't an "islamophobe". That's a relief for all of us Human Rights defending "islamophobes". Perhaps more knowledge about Human Rights could have de-radicalized the perpetrator. But again, BBC and politicians seem to prefer islamic sharia rather than universal Human Rights.
Blaming terrorism on "islamophobia" is in fact a direct attack on Human Rights - just like in Saudi Arabia where Human Rights are criminalized and equalized with terrorism.
Does Saudi spread "islamophobia" smear mean that Human Rights have lost and islamofascism has won? Only if you and your political representatives approve of it.
Islam has friends all over the place. When will basic Human Rights be treated the same?
Making propaganda through faking and cherry picking: When muslims mass murder Coptic Christians in Egypt it went almost unnoticed by BBC. Why? Was it because of a lack of "islamophobes" in Egypt? Or was it because of Saudi meddling in UK?Mishal Husain (left), a Pakistan rooted and Saudi raised muslim (who doesn't fast during Ramadan but rather drink some alcohol) is now leading BBC's most important "news", the three hour Today. Sajid Javid (right) is now Home secretary in charge of hostile environment for immigrants - especially those from EU and Iran.
It's Saudi inspired Sunni muslim terror that you as an individual are more likely to be targeted by than from Shia. Almost every muslim street hate crime has a Saudi/Sunni label - printed via Saudi steered channels.
The English language isn't "British" - it's old Nordic and it now belongs to the whole world - not to an "Anglospheric" conspiracy group.
Making robbery, pillaging, enslaving etc. a "great religion" based on language and race, cost a lot of slaves and oil. The Viking faith (Klevius is an apostate of that particular faith) could also easily have become a "great religion" - or has it?! Is it what we now call the West? And did it start, like Medieval islam, as a Hadith has it that islam started, via the revelations of a tall and blond man?
Can anyone of the "islamophobia" shouters tell the difference between Saudi based and steered OIC's world sharia declaration, which in its last article says it overrides any Human Rights?
Scapegoating Human Rights defenders for the purpose of protecting the islamofascist Saudi dictator family from scrutiny.
Like it or not, this murderous war criminal and muslim state terrorist is today's de facto custodian (or dictator, if you prefer) of islam - with the keen assistance of US/The Five Eyes and islam (i.e. not Human Rights) steered BBC.
The main ally of Five Eyes is the islamofascist Saudi dictator family - and especially the murderous war criminal Mohammad bin Salman (MBS). And the target list includes EU politicians, e.g. Merkel etc. This spy organization, which in effect is all about US interest, doesn't hesitate to spy each other as well. And you dare reader, are almost certainly targeted.
The islamic monster called Saudi Arabia was created by the West and is still supported by the West despite all the countless, murders, rapes, terrorist attacks, war crimes that have emanated from it all over the world - including most muslim terrorist organizations.
Terrorism is always against Human Rights - and always blamed on "islamophobia", never islam, no matter who the terrorists are.
Do muslims who don't propose islamic violence harbor less dangerous views than right wing people who don't propose violence? What about Jacob Rees-Mogg? Is he dangerous? After all, he isn't equally concerned about Human Rights as Klevius, and he seems to like the islamofascist Saudi dictatir family - at least when it comes to business.
A Saudi raised and Pakistan rooted Sunni muslim, Mishal Husain, will now be in charge of what state/fake-media BBC feeds the compulsory licence fee paying people in England. How come that islam, which has a clear sharia problem with Human Rights, is more protected and supported tha - Human Rights.
When will Human Rights be fully criminalized? "Islamophobia" accusation against Human Rights defenders who dare to criticize islamic sharia that violates Human Rights, is the first step. And no matter if muslims or non-muslims commit terror, "islamophobia" is always blamed. However, only non-muslims are called "islamophobes" although many (most?) muslims prefer Human Rights rather than sharia.
Who is more Human Rights-phobic, Jeremy Corbyn or Theresa May?