Klevius analysis of Theresa May's (and her advisors' anti Human Rights disaster.

Klevius quiz: What do Fiona Hill and BBC's muslim sharia presenter Mishal Husain have in common: They both support sharia extremism (i.e. islamofascism). Mishal Husain may not follow any sharia dictate herself, yet doesn't use any of her powerful position to go against sharia islam.

Nick Timothy, fighting against trading with China and journalist Fiona Hill, fighting for the rights of extremist muslims = pro Saudi sharia islamofascism and anti "islamophobia".

To be against "islamophobia" (i.e. against Human Rights criticism of islam in general and the Saudi islamofascists in particular) is a consequence of bowing towards the islamofascist Saudi dictator family. It's also the reason Theresa May said 'sharia is good for the Brits' (which "Brits"? - sharia muslims in Pakistan etc. Commonwealth nations?!). However, as Fiona Hill is described as both ignorant and aggressive is should surprise no one that she's also touchy. I mean, after all, she's a journalist.

Nick Timothy, fighting against trading with China and Fiona Hill, fighting for the rights of extremist muslims. Klevius question: Is this any good for England?.


Klevius wrote:

Saturday, July 30, 2016

Theresa May has "safety" prejudice against dealing with China - but can share security with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia

Some points Klevius fears BBC might miss:

Theresa May calls Pakistan our dependable ally and has deep prejudice against China - but not against Saudi Arabia.

Whereas China is divided in Communism within the state and Capitalism outside it, Saudi Arabia is a theocratic dictatorship busy spreading Koranic hate in the service of itself, i.e. how original islam did.

Klevius advise to Theresa May (and her advisors, Nick Timothy & Co): Britain is constantly attacked by Saudi Arabia and Pakistan via sharia islamism infiltration (both countries, unlike Britain, are islamist sharia states - the latter with nuclear war heads under uncertain control) . However, no one in her/his right mind would think about China as an attacker against Britain - neither now or in the past. And the appalling accusation against China about "to build weaknesses into computer systems which will allow them to shut down Britain’s energy production at will" seems childish at best. Especially when it's "proven" with a Chinese web site text about “building of national defence". Isn't that kind of approach almost universal, not the least in UK?!

China is a main part of our global future, not Pakistan or Saudi Arabia, both very minor players in comparison and both still struggling with unfortunate entanglements to medieval aggression and backwardness. Against this background, is it really in the best interest of UK to uphold racist attitudes against Chinese while showing extreme appeasement towards two of the most intolerant and dangerous countries in the world?

Pakistan defends itself by arguing that its intelligence categorizes "its islamist officers" (sic) in 3 categories: Whites are those publicly sympathetic with Taliban. Blacks are potential recruits for the Taliban. Reds are - Taliban. ISI, MI deal with them through surveillance and possible (sic) abduction and interrogation, and depending on the degree of their islamism they end up as "missing person" for some time or they just "disappear".

However, Pakistan seems quite unreliable. Compare for example, how Osama bin Laden was allowed to reside there. Double-play seems to be the core of "allies" in the muslim world.

David French: Pakistan also helped fund a suicide bombing in Afghanistan in 2009 that became the worst attack on CIA in a quarter-century. “Foreign intelligence service and Haqqani network involvement in the 30 December 2009 suicide attack at [Camp] Chapman,” begins the subject line for the State Department cable, written in early 2010 by a U.S. official who was not named. The memo, made public this week by a nonprofit group, proceeds to challenge the narrative of one of the worst days in the CIA’s history. It describes an elaborate plot in which Pakistan’s intelligence service allegedly put up $200,000 for the now-infamous bombing, which occurred when a presumed al-Qaeda informant was allowed into a secure U.S. base in Khost, Afghanistan, to meet with a team of American officers and handlers. While the claims are controversial (a U.S. investigation pinned the blame on al Qaeda, not Pakistan or its Haqqani network allies), they shouldn’t be remotely “startling.” Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) has long been suspected of “playing both sides” in the war on terror, and there is strong suspicion that the ISI actually views the Taliban as a “strategic asset.” Moving beyond ISI activities, insurgent access to Pakistan as a safe haven — a place where its fighters can rest, re-arm, and recruit — has proven to be of incalculable benefit to the Taliban since 9/11, and there is even evidence that the regular Pakistani army has on occasion fired on American troops. There have been so many reports of conflict that “Pakistan-United States Skirmishes” has its own Wikipedia entry. I recognize that the needs of war sometimes require our nation to ally itself with dangerous regimes (see World War II for the most salient example), but there is still a difference between a shaky or temporary ally and an actual enemy — a nation that is trying to undermine American interests and kill Americans. In other words, there is a line, and it is worth asking (and re-asking) if Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are on the right side.