What's new

United States and England, Safe-Havens for the Terrorists?

dabong1

<b>PDF VETERAN</b>
Joined
Nov 28, 2006
Messages
4,417
Reaction score
1
As hard as it may seem, but the truth is the so-called leaders waging war against the menace of terrorism are guilty of providing safe-Havens for the terrorists. Yes, it is true, in this day and age, the United States and England are indeed harboring and nurturing some of the worlds most dangerous and vicious terrorists. It is such a shame that the government's of these countries not only provide safety and comfort to these terrorists, but in many cases they even reward them with their citizenship along with public welfare benefits. You got it right; the terrorists are harbored and comforted at taxpayers' hard-earned money.
In a prime example of hypocrisy and an instance of violation of international laws, in February 2001, one of the worst terrorist the world has ever known, a man credited with more acts of terrorism than Osama bin Laden, a man solely responsible for the massacre of thousands of Pakistani citizens was granted British citizenship with full civil, constitutional rights and privileges available to all British citizens. His name is Altaf Hussain. By granting citizenship to him, the British government deliberately violated international laws, like the UN Security Council's (UNSC) Resolution 1189 (section 5) and still stands in violation of, among many, UNSC Resolution 1368.

By the late 1990’s, there were over 260 criminal cases, many involving acts of terrorism, pending/decided in Pakistan against Altaf Hussain. The Daily Telegraph reported, "When [the news media] asked why Mr Hussain was not deported to Pakistan before he was granted citizenship, a British diplomat [casually] said: ‘He has not committed a crime on British soil.’" In other words, one man's terrorist is another man's hero; but in this case the terrorist was rewarded with the British citizenship. As observed by the British news media, Altaf Hussain is still allowed by the British government to micromanage MQM from UK.

A taxi driver turned politician, in 1984; he became the leader of a political party, called Muttahida Quami Movement (MQM; previously also known as Muhajir Quami Movement). Based on racial lines, his party established no-go-areas and also opened up a number of torture cells around the city for those who were perceived to be political threats to the party. MQM is frequently cited for their involvement in terrorist and mafia activities, especially within the city of Karachi. It is widely believed, that the money made through carjackings, land grabbing, kidnappings, drug running, extortion (Bhatta), etc., enabled MQM to make remarkable gains in successive elections.

In another instance of how the British government protects and nurtures terrorists and mass murderers, Augusto Pinochet, ex-president of Chile and a wanted man for the murders of 3,000 dissidents and leftists, and for the torture of another 30,000 was first arrested and then was released by the then British Home Secretary Jack Straw without facing trial. The message was, unless British interests are harmed, all sort of fascists and terrorists can seek a safe-heaven in England.

Similarly, on the other side of Atlantic, the other self-proclaimed leader of war-against-terrorism has been busy protecting and harboring terrorists as well.

In 2006, a U.S Federal Court of Appeals set a notorious Cuban terrorist free. A Cuban terrorist, Luis Posada has boasted of helping set off deadly bombs in Havana hotels and masterminding a 1976 bombing of a Cuban airplane that killed 73 people. Declassified FBI and CIA documents corroborated Posada’s boasts. In a May 18, 2007, the Los Angeles Times editorial which honed on the hypocrisy of the Bush administration, it said, "With a misguided decision upholding bail for Cuban-born terrorist Luis Posada Carriles, the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans has done more than free a frail old man facing unremarkable immigration charges. It has exposed Washington to legitimate charges of hypocrisy in the war on terror." The editorial then equated Posada with the convicted terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui. It stated, "In other words, Posada is the Zacarias Moussaoui of Havana and Caracas. Moussaoui is serving a life sentence without parole in a federal prison in Colorado for conspiracy in the 9/11 attacks; Posada is free to live in Miami."

Then there are international criminals and terrorists like Charles Taylor. Taylor seized power in Liberia, and is indicted by the United Nation's Special Court with a 654-count indictment for war crimes and crimes against humanity committed during the conflict in Sierra Leone. These individuals are supported by the American political heavyweights and leaders of a very strong televangelist-Christians lobby like Pat Robertson. Robertson repeatedly supported Charles Taylor in various episodes of his TV program ‘700 Club’.

On June 2, 1999, a ‘The Virginian-Pilot’ article reported that Charles Taylor had extensive business dealings with televangelist Pat Robertson. The article alleged that Taylor gave Robertson the rights to mine for diamonds in Liberia. These diamonds are also known as blood-diamonds which the American government has now prohibited its imports. In an investigation conducted by the police against Robertson, it had been alleged that Robertson used his ‘Operation Blessing’ planes to haul diamond-mining equipment to his mines in Liberia. But for some unexplained and mysterious reasons, the Attorney General of Virginia Mark Earley blocked any potential prosecution against Robertson. Clearly, Pat Robertson, a racist and a bigot, who doesn't mind lining his pockets with the stolen money from his ministry and the blood-diamonds. This is the man who blames “Islam for teaching violence,” but is fine with violence as long as he can fatten up his personal bank accounts with the blood-money.

The United States and England (the self-proclaimed leaders in the war-against-terrorism), either believe that they are the only authorities that can designate ”terrorists”, or they believe that the rest of the world is too stupid or too blind to see through their hypocrisy. Meanwhile, they continue to boldly provide safe-havens to some of the most notorious terrorists. Either way, shame on them!

Three weeks after 9/11, Afghanistan was invaded and occupied by the so-called leaders of war-against-terrorism, because she was providing safe-havens for the terrorists. One of the reasons given for the invasion and occupation of Iraq was its contacts with the terrorists. Libya was bombed and heavily embargoed for decades, because it refused to hand over the men involved in PanAm bombing. Naturally, one has to wonder, can anyone dare to invade and occupy the United States and England for providing safe-havens for the terrorists?
 
Tomcat.. any proof that Altaf is the terrorist. :D
 
To some extent US allegatios have justification espeacially when looked thru american eyes.
US, despite all the talk of Democracy, still suffers from xenophobia. For example in the 19th century there was maxim:

"Only good Injun ( Red Indian) is a dead Injun".

In the early twentieth century there was the Monroe doctrine; openly keeping foreign goods out. In WWII all US citzens of Japanese descent were interned ( approx 200,000 !!). Later there was Macarthy'sm. "Any one disagreeing with Sen Macarthy must be a communist" was the theme of the day. This, in a country where human rights are written in the constitution
(5th ammendment) ??. US Senate made a law in the 1990's that any one visiting Cuba was not allowed to enter US for six months!!.

Basically despite all good things US has some extreme flaws. US believe that their country is always in the right and are intolerant of nations or people who disagree with their idea of liberty.

Old World ( Europe) on the other hand has been in the forefront of liberal ideas and tolerance. Two countries, France and Great Britain are specially tolerant societies and thus nurturing grounds of fresh ideas and human rights. First bill of rights ( Magna Carta) was institued in the UK and also UK parliament is the mother of all parliaments.

Take true revolutionaries of last 250 years; say Voltaire, Rousseau, Karl Marx and Darwin.
Their thinking has revolutionized mankind approach to the society. That is why all the people who are unable to find refuge in their own country end up in UK or France or in one of the Euprean countries. Ayatullah Khomeni fled to France, most of the PPP leadership found refuge in UK during Zia. Chilean Dictator was also in UK. Argentinian presidents run way to Spain or to Italy.

That is why Altaf Hussein is in UK. I dont deny that he is accused of many crimes but in Pakistani courts can you really get justice??. Nasirullah Baber eliminated thousands of MQM supporters in what is called extra judicial killings. How is that different than thuggery by MQM. Benazir is accused of many crimes as well. Murtaza Bhutto openly admited hijacking PIA plane and killing the Chief Secratry of Sindh who signed papers for hanging ZAB. A crime is a crime and whoso ever is guilty deserves just punishment.

I am not an MQM supporter. I am not saying that Altaf Hussain is innocent. Nor am I claiming that because BB is at large and Murtaza Bhuto never got convicted, Altaf Hussain should also go scot free.

My point is that condemning a country which provides political assylum to politicians ostracized in their own country is wrong. What ever the degeneration of UK society and I may be treated a second class citizen there. If I am wrongfully accused, it may take a long time but I would eventually get justice done. Can I say the same thing about Pakistan??. Any one who wants Altaf Hussain back should go to and try to get him thru legal process. Forged papers ( common ploy in Pakistan) wont get you anywhere in UK courts. Imran Khan has the right idea, he will sue Altaf Hussein in UK court.
 
There were reasons why Altaf said Pakistan is a mistake. It was a response to the inequality mahajirs were recieving even though when they were the most educated people compare to the punjabis and met the requirements.

But indeed Altaf is no angel.. but who is angle in the politics anyways?

Imran Khan has the right idea, he will sue Altaf Hussein in UK court.

I wonder if Pakistani cases can be resolved in the U.K courts or proper documents be created to make the suspect be dealt according to the courts in Pakistan.

There are some major flaws with this... Thousands of Pakistani citizens have taken money and have run away to the foriegn countries where they have hardly been touched!
 
There are so many instances in future when Altaf talked against the unity and integrity of Pak. Not against Pakistan alone but this man speaks time to time against Islamic values, although it is a fact that he will quote from Quran and Hadith on many vocations to divert the minds of public. May be his anti Islamic thinking grwe due to enmity with Jamaat-e-Islami in Karachi.
 
Just had a thought: Why can't he be executed Mossad Style?
 
quote]In the early twentieth century there was the Monroe doctrine; openly keeping foreign goods out. In WWII all US citzens of Japanese descent were interned ( approx 200,000 !!). Later there was Macarthy'sm. "Any one disagreeing with Sen Macarthy must be a communist" was the theme of the day. This, in a country where human rights are written in the constitution
(5th ammendment) ??. US Senate made a law in the 1990's that any one visiting Cuba was not allowed to enter US for six months!!.[/quote]

Monroe Doctrine was early 19th Century your off by 100 year sand was aiemd at stopping colonial explotation of the Americas.

The Monroe Doctrine is a U.S. doctrine which, on December 2, 1823, proclaimed that European powers would no longer colonize or interfere with the affairs of the nations of the Americas. The United States planned to stay neutral in wars between European powers and its colonies. However, if these latter types of wars were to occur in the Americas, the United States would view such action as hostile. President James Monroe first stated the doctrine during his seventh annual State of the Union Address to Congress, a defining moment in the foreign policy of the United States.

The Japanese Internment was a disgrace and our govemrent paid compensation. Slavery and Jim Crow wa sa disgrace and we enacted laws to counter the racism.

England seems to be doing OK with its Muslim population, but France is treatign them like crap locking them in ghetto like apaprtment tenements with no jobs, no rights, and no hope.

America isn't perfect, but we do at least learn form our mistakes.

Also BTW the Magna Carta was not a bill of rights but a contract between leige and vassal (King and Noble/warrior classses) for the purposes of taxation to fianace King John's war for his French, Norman, and Aquitane possesions and to pay the debt on the Ransom of Richard. It in no way applied to even Freemen let alone serfs.
 
I appologize about my error, James Monroe was indeed in the 1820's.

My point about US arbitray actions and 'Holier than thou' attitude however remains valid. There are dozens of examples where US has tried to ramrod their laws and their view of right and wrong on rest of the world. US today is the most glaring example of "Might is right".
 
Back
Top Bottom