Not only is Obama an accomplice* to the 100,000 Syrians already killed - he now wants to kill and victimize even more
* His first call and his first bow as
"president" was to the islamofascist Saudi muslim Sunni dictator in the
world's worst hate mongering and intolerant nation!
Muslim born (apostate?!) Mr X "president" Barry Barakeh Hussein Obama
Soetoro Dunham (or whatever) said in Cairo many years ago that he
"respects" islam. However, he didn't mention which islam and which
muslims. Now we all know it is Saudi islam(ofascism)!
And how could anyone who subscribes to Human Rights possibly respect
an evil ideology that has spread continuous evilness for some 1400 years
and which in all its forms is completely incompatible with the most
basic of Human Rights?! A disastrous parasitic slavery ideology that
needs both history falsification and criminalization of its critics for
its survival!
The racist election propaganda preceding US' by far worst "president"
ever, as well as his own lack of moral standing, and bigoted and
hypocritical racial hate mongering (compare his background with Jeremiah
Wright), as well as his close ties to the worst criminals on Earth, the
Saudi and other islamofascists, constitutes the background to
understand why he so eagerly wants to cause even more suffering in Syria
than he has already caused while blinking the long lasting suffering in
Sudan etc.
The fruit of the promotion of black racism?
This proud African-American, Demetrius L. Glenn, together with his friend, beat a small
88-year old World War II veteran, Delbert Belton, brutally to death.
What if Belton had managed to defend himself like Georg Zimmerman did?!
Klevius question: If this was a hate crime (and everything
indicates it was), who taught him to hate? And why aren't his parents
arrested for grave child neglect?! And why did Obama say Trayvon Martin could have been his son?
According
to child abuse and neglect considerations Trayvon Martin's parents
should be held responsible for their sons premature death.
Just like any parent who lets* their child become a threat to other people.
And just like muslims who pass their own hate raligion to their jihadist kids.
Saudi Mr. Gas? Why doesn't Obama bomb Riyadh?! A good guess is that most
of the money paid to murderous muslim terrorists comes from Riyadh!
Wall Street Journal: Officials inside the Central Intelligence
Agency knew that Saudi Arabia was serious about toppling Syrian
President Bashar al-Assad when the Saudi king named Prince Bandar bin
Sultan al-Saud to lead the effort.
Press TV (the main Shia world media which is now forbidden in e.g. UK):
Syrians in the
Damascus suburb of Ghouta say Saudi Arabia provided chemical weapons for
an al-Qaeda linked terrorist group which they blame for the August 21
chemical attack in the region, a report says.
The article co-authored by a veteran AP reporter, said interviews
with doctors, residents, anti-government forces and their families in
Ghouta suggest the terrorists in question received chemical weapons via
Saudi spymaster Saudi Arabia's intelligence chief Prince Bandar bin
Sultan Al Saud.
The report quoted the father of a militant as saying that his son
and 12 others were killed inside a tunnel used to store weapons supplied
by a Saudi militant leader, known as Abu Ayesha.
The man described the weapons as having a “tube-like structure” while others were like a “huge gas bottle.”
BBC (with tight financial ties to Saudi and other islamofascists via its
commercial BBC World section) showcased its professional Saudi
supporting propaganda timing for its compulsory license fee paying
listeners
While the UK parliament voted on going to war against Syrians, BBC Radio
4 constantly played (al-Qaeda/al-Nusra?) recorded children's screams
from an alleged school bombing (sic - why would Assad bomb schools
unless it was a mistake or used by muslim terrorists) by the Syrian
government that had happened long before. It was during a regular news
hour show so chances were many of the MPs might have listened on their
personal gadgets and out of curiosity before voting. I.e. an appeal to
sidestep logic for emotions in the service of Saudi etc islamofascists
use of innocent blood fot their own political agenda. And as we know,
the result was very tight and could easily have changed in BBC's and the
Saudis etc Sunni islamofascists favor.
And behind it all towers Saudi based OIC (all the world's muslims world
organization) which, according to Kerry, now also supports an additional
violent attack on the Syrians.
And here are the front soldiers in islam's continuing evil of its evil origin.
Only truly pious (so called "extremist") muslims are truly evil.
However, all non-extremist (secularized) "muslims" aren't necessarily
good either if they knowingly use the evilness of islam for their own
satisfaction. Only ignorant "muslims" can be excused.
While contemplating the pic below, do consider the inevitable fact
that islam (in any meaningful form) doesn't approve of our most basic
universal Human Rights! That's the main pillar of the problem, dude!
So those muslims who don't fit in either category need to face Erdogan,
OIC and Human Rights violating Sharia - or admit they are no real
muslims.
Klevius comment: I for one cannot see the slightest space for
political islam in a democratic society based on the belief in Human
Rights. Can you?
What is it you should see behind the islamofascist smile? 1400 years of Koranic genocides and rapetivism?
Eric Reeves (http://allafrica.com/stories/201308300801.html):
As the world reacts with horror to chemical weapons attacks on civilians
in Syria, and watches with grim anticipation as an American military
response takes shape, there appears to be little "band-width" for other
international news. It is all easy too overlook the much more widespread
suffering and civilian destruction in Darfur, an ongoing catastrophe
that is accelerating in such a way that humanitarian organizations may
soon be compelled to withdraw, leaving an immense vacuum in the
provision of food, primary medical care, and clean water. The UN/African
Union Mission in Darfur (UNAMID) appears to be in a state of collapse,
unable to protect itself or to serve any deterrent or civilian
protection purposes. Several events in particular this past week give a
sense of how weak this beleaguered force has become and the consequences
of allowing Khartoum to create in Darfur an intolerable climate of
insecurity. Their implications are analyzed briefly below.
It seems important as well, however, to understand just how misleading
the implicit comparisons are between civilian victims of chemical
weapons in Syria and the civilian victims of utterly indiscriminate
aerial bombardment by the Sudan Armed Forces (SAF) of the Khartoum
regime-not only in Darfur but in Blue Nile and the Nuba Mountains of
South Kordofan as well. In the case of Syria, the strenuous language
deployed is a pretext for military action in a region of very
considerable geostrategic significance. As a consequence, there has been
much talk of how the Assad regime's chemical attacks on the outskirts
of Damascus are a "moral obscenity," that they are somehow uniquely
"gruesome," that such actions are the ne plus ultra of military
barbarism. But such descriptions as used by U.S. Secretary of State John
Kerry are finally expedient; for presumably Kerry knows full well the
consequences of aerial attacks on civilians in Darfur and greater Sudan
as a whole. There have been more than 2,000 such confirmed aerial
attacks on civilians and humanitarians over the past fifteen years, and
this is likely only a small fraction of the actual number of bombings.
Many tens of thousands have been killed in these attacks-directly or
indirectly-dwarfing the number of casualties from chemical weapons
attacks in Syria and even in Iraq during Saddam Hussein's infamous
al-Anfal campaign against the Kurds in the late 1980s.
And any comparison of how "gruesome" death is by means of chemical
attack on the one hand, and the shrapnel-inflicted wounding of children,
women, the elderly on the other, will inevitably be invidious.
Histories of the First World War have given us many images, narratives
accounts, even poetry representing the agony of mustard gas inhalation;
it is without question horrific, indeed "gruesome." But can this justify
implicit claims that the nature of death from shrapnel exploding out of
crude barrel bombs, inflicting ghastly wounds, is any less "gruesome"?
Indeed, it is a pointless and misleading comparison. But if there are
those who wish to see photographs of the agony endured by bombing
victims-children and women are the most common victims, but they include
any and all caught in the broad swathe of crude barrel bombs dropped
from an Antonov cargo plane at a height of 5,000 meters-I have posted a
number of them on my Tumblr account (caution: many of these are deeply
disturbing images, even as they do not include the most "gruesome":
http://www.tumblr.com/blog/sudanreeves).
