| Author |
Message |
    
ae35unit
Citizen
Username: Ae35unit
Post Number: 2
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 1:08 pm: | 
|
GOP writes: "I wish this UAE story would go away. I support my president unequivocally." Does this mean you support the man or the office? Did you support President Clinton unequivocally? If you did not support Clinton, but do support Bush, can you please educate me as to why? As I said on another post, this is not a rhetorical question. Educate me.
|
Smarty Jones
Citizen
Username: Birdstone
Post Number: 406
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 1:17 pm: |
|
Tulip, you have quite a resume, and you are obviously a highly educated individual, yet I'm perplexed at why you refuse to educate yourself on this transaction, because you are operating on assumptions that just aren't true. I'll pose three very simple questions to you, although I admit I feel like I'm debating with a ninth grader who enjoys the thrill of a debate with an adult, more than the scrutiny of the facts:
1. How does refusing to do business with international/multi-cultural companies help us to engage in the worlds community?
2. What part of this deal involves the sale of land or the sale of US Ports to a non-US country?
3. Whose Rights are being Sold off, and who is actually selling these rights? |
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 3251
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 1:32 pm: |
|
smarty: I assure you I'm a little older than ninth grade, but my opportunities to interact with rightwingers have been limited, indeed, since college days, so here goes anyway.
1) Refusing to do business with international/multicultral companies may not help us engage in the world's communities, hence my disagreement with my son (who is now known to the message board and is vocally against NAFTA.)
However, I believe that is not what is going on here. As we have frequently been reminded, this is about the sale of port operations to a company THAT IS OWNED BY A COUNTRY. A company owned by a country. Not an independent company.
2) I admit, I used "land" metaphorically.
3) The right of privacy of US port operations, the right of sovereignty, and safety of ports, an extremely vulnerable point for any society, culture or nation throughout human history, should be carefully guarded.
We have a right to staff our own ports with US citizens. We have a right to supply American workers for American jobs. I think Nafta is starting to unravel because we are not allowing our own US companies to survive. This said, admittedly, by a woman who has a much greater confidence in my VW than I would in a Ford. I say, however, where we CAN, we should...essentially...buy American, and sell American.
I think also, it's dangerous to allow access to a country involved in some questionable alliances (see Dave's arguments) to our ports.
Period. It's just asking for it. It makes me wonder what happened just pre-9/11, and wonder if we shouldn't take another look at Michael Moore's film, actually.
PS: I like the question just posed to Robert Kimmitt, Deputy Secretary of the Treasury by a press woman. "Did anyone ever think about the political responses to this decision?"
Kimmitt's response is about how when a headline read "Arab country to acquire port" and there were no responses from the citizenry, it didn't have political sensitivity. He admits that the White House said to them they should have studied the ramifications better. Well, good. I am glad old Georgie is thinking about us. Really takes a load off!!!
Now, she's asking if he "understands the problem the public is having with this decision."
He says he does understand, and the problems are
LEGITIMATE
So, if the very committee that made the decision, admits that concerns are legitimate, maybe you could take it under advisement.
|
Smarty Jones
Citizen
Username: Birdstone
Post Number: 408
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 1:59 pm: |
|
I'll take another stab at this, because I honestly think you'll change your mind when you examine the facts. Thank you for your thoughtful reply:
1) Most international nations aren't yet Capitalistic nations, therefor, dealing with the world involves dealing with State Owned companies. There's no way around this without shutting out the majority of the world.
2) Resolved.
3) Not sure what the heck your use of Sovereignty was meant for here, maybe it sounded Poetic when you wrote it, but I can't really reply to this first sentence because I don't know what you mean. The security of our ports can and will continue to be managed by US Customs. The company working with Customs at the ports will be no different than the International Airlines working with Customs at the Air Terminals. The ports can and will be continued to be staffed by American Union Longshoreman. As far as allowing access to these nations, they already have that access as a major import/exporter of oil. Nothing is changing here. As far as their questionable alliances, these are all derived from Conspiricy theories and anti-arab sentiment. Dave's arguments are completely unfounded.
You raise a good point, which is "what about the political ramifications of the Headline". I agree with you, and clearly they gave the public more credit than the Public deserved. The press (with headlines like "Arab Country to Acquire Port") has effectively wipped up arab-racist sentiment and sold a ton of newspapers. Shame on them and shame on us as a population for revealing our nasty, racist underbelly.
|
Paris Hiltonberry
Supporter
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 6831
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 2:03 pm: |
|
Tulip,
I'm glad you're proud of your son and I'm sure he's proud of his beliefs. However, you are harming his future, especially if he decides not to be a left wing radical like his mom once he matures. An arrest is an arrest, and it's never a good thing. Try a google, see what happens. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5227
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 2:22 pm: |
|
Ask Gaffney what he thinks about Chinese companies in US ports, much less on both ends of the Panama Canal.
What do you think about the Chinese running Newark terminals, Dave? Tulip? The stunning news that Brits and Danes are running things -- is that hurting our sovereignty? |
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 3253
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 2:27 pm: |
|
smarty: "They clearly gave the public more credit than the public deserved."
You know, if you listened to the hearing this a.m, and the aftermath on C-Span with callers, more of them were concerned about the safety issue of having information available to whoever runs the operations at the ports. That's what Americans are mostly concerned about.
I did not hear the twang of racism, xenophobia or general (forgive me) isolationism as their concern. The American public is concerned that another country, with documented ties to Osama Bin Laden, would actually have access to port information.
As was pointed out by one caller, it feels like this whole deal might be a sort of kickback for Bush family ties. I know that sounds alarmist, but it's a decision that was made in secret, without the knowledge EVEN OF the PRESIDENT, if we are to believe HIM!!!
Look, stay tuned, smarty, to the news. I know it's not Ph.D level research, but as Hillary said,
"ON THE SURFACE OF IT, it doesn't look like a good idea."
This decision to allow UAE to run operations at many ports will provide too much access to a country we have to have cautious response to, no matter what you say.
You are going to lose this one, smarty, for better or for worse.
I know why I don't like this deal. It puts money before country, and I don't choose to do that.
I believe America is for Americans when it comes to the corporate level, and I don't see the benefit of courting the UAE, just because they have so much money. It makes me feel like the US is acting like a ....well...a woman of the streets, as it were.
And as for Straw:
Believe me, my son will be a leftwing nut long after I am dead and buried. I love him, and an arrest may be an arrest, but I have googled him, and I google him often. In fact, I sometimes have to google to find out how things are going, as he's off to a conference in San Francisco, or a meeting here or a protest there.
I am very excited about his level of political involvement, and have been since he started in about tenth or eleventh grade. He was, I must admit, reading Das Kapital when he was in eighth grade.
Sorry, Paris, he just is a political animal. That's the way young political animals of the left get their stripes. Unlike you, who just spends all his time insulting people and yawning in public!!!
 |
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 3254
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 2:37 pm: |
|
I forgot to address the concept of sovereignty. Thanks, cjc, for reminding me.
On the issue of sovereignty, it is quite obvious that our borders have been breeched, and that 9/11 represents that. Not since the Civil War has violence of this magnitude come to our shores. We need to be vigilant. The ports are ports of entry for containers and other hardware.
I do think that a country that has had ties with Bin Laden, and that has had "problems with counter-terrorism" as cited in the 9/ll Report, published, should be questioned as having any role in port operations.
I do also think that the fact that the committee that made this decision did not consult commissioners of the 9/11 committee is odd.
Why was this decision made without looking at the facts?
Sovereignty for a country is not a poetic notion, cjc. It's about defensible borders. Not about defending borders from jobless Mexicans or impoverished minorities, but defending them from smart, well-equipped and ubiquitous terrorists.
NO ONE is saying Dubai or the UAE are terrorists, but they could be vulnerable.
cjc: Are the companies you cite from China and Denmark owned by their nation-states?
I would like to know.
Thanks,
tulip
|
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 3071
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 2:38 pm: |
|
My opinion on this issue has changed as more information has come out.
I am very disappointed in how our press handled the DPW story when it first broke. It was very remiss of CNN, NYT, etc., to omit the fact that most ports in the U.S. (and virtually everywhere, apparently) are managed by other countries. This was not mentioned until a day or two after the story came to light. And it's important to realize, too, that DPW is not buying the port, they are buying the management rights of the port, which is not at all the same thing.
I think management of our ports should be limited to American companies, but we must consider the record at our ports to date. Sure, there's a lot of smuggling, but there haven't been any really huge acts of terrorism connected to anti-American activities by the companies that run our ports.
But that raises another point: the opposition to DPW's takeover is not based on a fear of Arabs. It is based on a fear of terrorism. If you think those are the same thing, than YOU are the racist. |
Smarty Jones
Citizen
Username: Birdstone
Post Number: 410
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 2:54 pm: |
|
"with documented ties to Osama Bin Laden": Please produce/footnote said documents, or stop perpetuating harmful rumors and figments of every conspiricy theorists imagination.
"We have to have a cautious response to [UAE]": Is this how you feel we should basically treat Arabs and Arab nations?
"It puts money before country": How does a British Firm selling their contract to another Firm affect profits in the US? No US hand is in the middle.
"This decision to allow UAE to run operations at many ports will provide too much access to a country": Specifically, access to WHAT are you concerned about? You probably have no idea what they already do, or will have access to. Are you concerned that we keep secret plans, or secret documents at our ports? Do you think we have covert military defense operations that will be exposed to these ruthless Arab nations?
You are letting your fear of the unknown and your fear of Arabs (unknown due to your refusal to educate yourself on the topic) get the best of you.... They are the underlying causes that ultimately drives racist behavior.
|
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 3255
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 3:02 pm: |
|
smarty:
You join the ranks of SLK and MBJ as the rear end of the horse who is the source of your "nom de plume." I will respond to you when you can stop accusing me of racism. Read notehead's excellent post. |
Smarty Jones
Citizen
Username: Birdstone
Post Number: 411
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 3:30 pm: |
|
Tulip...it appears I'm the only one that chose to engage in a discussion with you, and you reward that by shutting out my points of view? I've responded to you with nothing but facts, and I've challenged you with a very hard question, which is whether or not you think you are holding Arab's to a different standard then you hold other ethnic nations.
Why I've continued to respond with facts and information to your conspiricy theories and unfounded fears is a question I must ask myself, as to how I'm spending my time today. However, I think its fair to ask somebody the very difficult question as to whether or not their fears are legitimate, or perhaps if it's bubbling up from something you've always assumed you've been immune to.
|
Elgato
Citizen
Username: Elgato
Post Number: 27
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 3:39 pm: |
|
Smarty, I read somewhere (will try and find it again) that Osama Bin Laden was treated in Dubai for his kidney problems shortly before 9/11. |
Smarty Jones
Citizen
Username: Birdstone
Post Number: 412
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 3:42 pm: |
|
Notehead: I agree with your points across the board...you are exactly right (and have repeated several facts I've already mentioned, but clearly Tulip hasn't even read one of my posts and responds recklessly).
However, taking the Fear of Terrorism, and applying those fears to your decisions/responses to a respectable and reputable UAE business is the definition of Racism, is it not? |
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 3257
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 3:46 pm: |
|
smarty: For starters, after a 30 second search on google: Link between Dubai and Bin Laden, and if I had more time, I know I could find more:
Centre for Research on Globalisation
[ home ] [ print version ]
An article in the French daily Le Figaro confirms that Osama bin Laden underwent surgery in an American Hospital in Dubai in July.
During his stay in the hospital, he met with a CIA official. While on the World's "most wanted list", no attempt was made to arrest him during his two week stay in the hospital, shedding doubt on the Administration's resolve to track down Osama bin Laden.
Barely a few days ago Defense Secretary Rumsfeld stated that it would be difficult to find him and extradite him. Its like "searching for a needle in a stack of hay". But the US could have ordered his arrest and extradition in Dubai last July. But then they would not have had a pretext of waging a war. Meanwhile, innocent civilians are being killed by B-52 Bombers as means "to go after" Osama bin Laden. According to UN sources, the so-called "campaign against international terrorism" could lead to the death of several million people from an impending famine.
The original article in French is also posted on the CRG webpage.
Michel Chossudovsky, CRG. 2 November 2001
The CIA met Bin Laden while undergoing treatment at an American Hospital last July in Dubai
by Alexandra Richard
Translated courtesy of Tiphaine Dickson
Le Figaro, 11 October 2001
Posted at globalresearch.ca 2 November 2001
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dubai, one of the seven emirates of the Federation of the United Arab Emirates, North-East of Abi-Dhabi. This city, population 350,000, was the backdrop of a secret meeting between Osama bin Laden and the local CIA agent in July. A partner of the administration of the American Hospital in Dubai claims that public enemy number one stayed at this hospital between the 4th and 14th of July.
Having taken off from the Quetta airport in Pakistan, bin Laden was transferred to the hospital upon his arrival at Dubai airport. He was accompanied by his personal physician and faithful lieutenant, who could be Ayman al-Zawahari--but on this sources are not entirely certain--, four bodyguards, as well as a male Algerian nurse, and admitted to the American Hospital, a glass and marble building situated between the Al-Garhoud and Al-Maktoum bridges.
Each floor of the hospital has two "VIP" suites and fifteen rooms. The Saudi billionnaire was admitted to the well-respected urology department run by Teerry Callaway, gallstone and infertility specialist. Dr Callaway declined to respond to our questions despite several phone calls.
As early as March, 2000, 'Asia Week,' published in Hong Kong, expressed concern for bin Laden's health, describing a serious medical problem that could put his life in danger because of "a kidney infection that is propagating itself to the liver and requires specialized treatment". According to authorized sources, bin Laden had mobile dialysis equipment shipped to his hideout in Kandahar in the first part of 2000. According to our sources, bin Laden's "travels for health reasons" have taken place before. Between 1996 and 1998, bin Laden made several trips to Dubai on business.
On September 27th, 15 days after the World Trade Center attacks, at the request of the United States, the Central Bank of the Arab Emirates announced an order to freeze assts and investments of 26 people or organisations suspected of mainting contact with bin Laden's organization, and in particular at the Dubai Islamic Bank.
"Relations between the Emirate and Saudi Arabia have always been very close," according to sources, "princes of reigning families, having recognized the Taliban regime, often travelled to Afghanistan. One of the princes of a ruling family regularily went hunting on the land of bin Laden, whom he had known and visited for many years."
There are daily flights between Dubai and Quetta by both Pakistan and Emirates Airlines. As to private planes from Saudi Arabia or from the Emirates, they regulariy fly to Quetta, where their arrival is rarely registered in airport logs.
While he was hospitalised, bin Laden received visits from many members of his family as well as prominent Saudis and Emiratis. During the hospital stay, the local CIA agent, known to many in Dubai, was seen taking the main elevator of the hospital to go to bin Laden's hospital room.
A few days later, the CIA man bragged to a few friends about having visited bin Laden. Authorised sources say that on July 15th, the day after bin Laden returned to Quetta, the CIA agent was called back to headquarters.
In late July, Emirates customs agents arrested Franco-Algerian activist Djamel Beghal at the Dubai airport. In early August, French and American authorities were advised of the arrest. Interrogated by local authorities in Abu Dhabi, Beghal stated that he was called to Afghanistan in late 2000 by Abou Zoubeida, a military leader of bin Laden's organization, Al Qaeda. Beghal's mission: bomb the US embassy on Gabriel avenue, near the Place de la Concorde, upon his return to France.
According to Arab diplomatic sources as well as French intelligence, very specific information was transmitted to the CIA with respect to terrorist attacks against American interests around the world, including on US soil. A DST report dated 7 September enumerates all the intelligence, and specifies that the order to attack was to come from Afghanistan.
In August, at the US Embassy in Paris, an emergency meeting was called between the DGSE (French foreign intelligence service) and senior US intelligence officials. The Americans were extremely worried, and requested very specific information from the French about Algerian activists, without advising their counterparts about the reasons for their requests. To the question "what do you fear in the coming days?", the Americans kept a difficult-to-fathom silence.
Contacts between the CIA and bin Laden began in 1979 when, as a representative of his family's business, bin Laden began recruiting volunteers for the Afghan resistance against the Red Army. FBI investigators examining the embassy bombing sites in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam discovered that evidence led to military explosives from the US Army, and that these explosives had been delivered threee years earlier to Afghan Arabs, the infamous international volunteer brigades involved side by side with bin Laden during the Afghan war against the Red Army.
In the pursuit of its investigations, the FBI discovered "financing agreements" that the CIA had been developing with its "arab friends" for years. The Dubai meeting is then within the logic of "a certain American policy".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The URL of this article is:
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/RIC111B.html
Copyright, Le Figaro, 2001. For fair use only.
|
Smarty Jones
Citizen
Username: Birdstone
Post Number: 413
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 4:15 pm: |
|
Tulip, I now formally doubt that you have the education your claim to have, as you have reduced this discussion to complete absurdity.
Your article more supports links to Terrorism with the CIA than it does to the UAE corporation/Government. But you don't need me to point that out now do you, because you probably already believe that the CIA was behind 9-11, so I won't even bother. (not for nothing, but CIA links to Bin Laden are very well known, and very well documented in the Congressional Report, but I doubt that you read that either).
Further, if your idea of "Documented Links" is an old article from a French Newspaper, then you are truly hopeless. You are a danger to yourself and others on the internet.
I was wrong to claim discussions with you was like a discussion with a ninth grader......Try Sixth Grade instead. You have accomplished your goal of silencing me, if not through Reason and Ideas than through Lunacy and Frustration.
Rest assured that I will never, ever, ever attempt to engage in thoughtful discussion with you again. If I sound upset with you, I'm not. I'm upset with myself for wasting my time on this board today, and I appoligize if I've adopted a nasty tone because of it. |
Robert Livingston
Citizen
Username: Rob_livingston
Post Number: 1595
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 4:28 pm: |
|
Jonesy: Would you quantify today's waste of time on MOL more, less, or the same, as the day you spent agonozing about a possible three-second leaflet encounter at the train station? |
Smarty Jones
Citizen
Username: Birdstone
Post Number: 414
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 4:40 pm: |
|
Rob, you are demonstrating a little bit of an obsession with me here, following me around on different threads....I'm flattered.
And you ask a very good question, to which I don't have the answer. |
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 3258
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 5:23 pm: |
|
It's OK, Smarty. The more I have you cornered, the more you kvetch. Don't worry, I have the education I claim to have. I just don't feel like doing your research for you. If you like Fox News, you should watch tonight, because they are saying there's a link.
Choose your sources.
In any case, your cause is lost, because
1) the Congress will override Bush's veto.
2) There's no mission accomplished in Iraq, quite to the contrary, there's a pending civil war. (Shouldn't let those mosques get bombed if you want it to look like peace!)
3) Republicans are politically doomed for 2008, no matter what happens now.
Nighty night. Sorry you wasted your day. I actually got some work done.
 |
Grrrrrrrrrrr
Citizen
Username: Oldsctls67
Post Number: 296
Registered: 11-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 5:34 pm: |
|
"3) Republicans are politically doomed for 2008, no matter what happens now."
Not true at all...While I am not hopeful at this point, I can still take solace that the fact that the 2008 Presidential election could still go either way...We don't even know who the candidates will be yet... |
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 3259
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 5:38 pm: |
|
OK, smarty. Don't like Le Figaro?
Try US News!!!
Bin Laden's operatives still using freewheeling Dubai
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — Osama bin Laden's operatives still use this freewheeling city as a logistical hub three years after more than half the Sept. 11 hijackers flew directly from Dubai to the United States in the final preparatory stages for the attack.
The recent arrest of an alleged top al-Qaeda combat coach is the latest sign that suspected members of the terrorist organization are among those who take advantage of travel rules that allow easy entry. Citizens of neighboring Gulf states such as Saudi Arabia can come to Dubai without visas, which other nationalities can get at the country's ports of entry.
Once here, it's easy to blend in to what has become a cosmopolitan crowd.
The Emirates is home to an estimated 4 million people, and nearly 75% of them are foreigners. In Dubai, expatriates of all nationalities are catered to, from concerts by top Western musicians to cricket and rugby matches to a German-styled Oktoberfest.
The expatriates, mostly from the Indian subcontinent and the Arab world, are employed in the real estate, insurance, tourism and banking sectors. Westerners, numbering in the tens of thousands, are employed as military advisers and oil specialists.
While the Emirates has taken concrete steps to fight terrorism since Sept. 11, 2001 — including making high-profile arrests, passing an anti-money laundering law, and imposing close monitoring procedures on charity organizations — the characteristics that make it an ideal place for legitimate business also attract militants and others with suspect motives.
In August, Pakistani Qari Saifullah Akhtar, suspected of training thousands of al-Qaeda fighters for combat, was arrested in the Emirates and turned over to officials in his homeland, authorities in Pakistan announced.
Emirates authorities have refused to comment on Akhtar's arrest. They were similarly tightlipped in 2002, when the United States announced the arrest of Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the suspected mastermind of the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 U.S. sailors.
It was a month before Emirates officials confirmed al-Nashiri had been arrested here. Then they said he had been planning to attack "vital economic targets" in the Emirates that were likely to inflict "the highest possible casualties among nationals and foreigners."
The Saudi-born al-Nashiri, one of six Cole defendants in an ongoing trial in Yemen, is in U.S. custody at an undisclosed location. Besides the Cole attack, he is suspected of helping direct the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, U.S. officials say.
With open borders, multiethnic society and freewheeling business rules, the Emirates remains vital to al-Qaeda operations, said Evan F. Kohlmann, a Washington-based terrorism researcher.
Dubai still "plays a key role for al-Qaeda as a through-point and a money transfer location," Kohlmann said, although he also noted the country could be working to combat such activity with "an aggressive but low-profile intelligence strategy."
al-Qaeda isn't the only organization that has found Dubai useful. The father of Pakistan's nuclear program, Abdul Qadeer Khan, has acknowledged heading a clandestine group that, with the help of a Dubai company, supplied Pakistani nuclear technology to Iran, Libya and North Korea.
Emirates officials refused to discuss the country's latest steps to combat terror.
Dia'a Rashwan, an Egyptian expert on militant groups, said trumpeting developments such as the arrest of al-Qaeda suspects could be misread as serving the United States when the Emirates, led by its President Sheik Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan, cultivates an image as a champion of Arab causes. The Emirates nonetheless has a close relationship with Washington.
Rashwan said the reticence also could stem from fear that saying too much could cause "panic among the huge expatriate community, which is proportionally the largest in the Gulf."
Kohlmann said if more al-Qaeda suspects are arrested in the Emirates, the network might retaliate with a strike here, perhaps on a U.S. mission or military target.
While the country has not been singled out as a target by al-Qaeda, the United States issued a warning in June that it had "information that extremists may be planning to carry out attacks against Westerners and oil workers in the Persian Gulf region, beyond Saudi Arabia."
Security is tight in the Emirates, but not visible, and violent crimes are uncommon.
"The United Arab Emirates is considered a safe haven for everybody," said Emirates analyst Abdulkhaleq Abdulla. "It has not yet got entangled in any of the violence that other countries around it have experienced and it wants to keep that image."
Shortly after the Sept. 11, attacks, U.S. authorities said the United Arab Emirates, especially the commercial hub Dubai, was a major transit and money transfer center for al-Qaeda.
A new report dated Aug. 21 by the U.S. commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks provided the most detail yet on the extent to which the hijackers used Dubai as a travel hub.
According to the U.S. government, 13 of the 19 hijackers entered the United States between April 23 and June 29, 2001. And 11 of those late-arrivers — who were Saudi citizens and primarily the "muscle" for the hijackings — went through Dubai, according to the report.
The hijackers traveled in groups of two or three, taking off from Dubai and arriving at airports in Miami, Orlando, or New York City, the report said.
As for the money trail, Bin Laden's alleged financial manager, Mustafa Ahmed al-Hisawi, received at a Dubai bank a transfer of $15,000 two days before the Sept. 11 attacks and then left the Emirates for Pakistan, where he was arrested last year.
Marwan Al-Shehhi, an Emirates citizen and one of the hijackers, received $100,000 via the United Arab Emirates. Another hijacker, Fayez Banihammad, also was from the Emirates.
About half of the $250,000 spent on the attacks was wired to al-Qaeda terrorists in the United States from Dubai banks, authorities said. al-Qaeda money in Dubai banks also has been linked to the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
© Copyright 2006 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.
|
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 3260
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 6:04 pm: |
|
Rove told Tony Snow in a radio show today (I am sure you all know this, 'cause you are all listening to Fox News) that they will wait a bit. Good. Let's look into this. Even the Dubai Ports World says they'll wait.
Hah!!!
The People, Yes!!
Thanks, Senator Menendez!!!
A Reckoning, or list of sorts:
In no particular order:
Stupid Idea 1) Dubai Ports World to purchase management rights to ports in US
Stupid action 2) President not informed of above.
Stupid action 3) VP admits he thinks it's OK for him to declassify classified material.
Stupid action 4) President authorizes wiretaps without warrants
Stupid action 5) VP delays by three days an announcement that he's had a hunting accident
stupid action 6) VP has a hunting accident
stupid action 7) President nominates some lawyer woman he likes for Supreme Court
stupid action 8) President delays response to Katrina, won't even send ice, food, to starving people
stupid action 9) President delays response to tsunami, thereby insulting countless millions in Asia
stupid action 10) President, or other administration official, allows torture and violations of Geneva Conventions
stupid action 11) President involves US lives and materiel in war leading to civil war in Iraq
stupid idea 12) social security is to be privatized
stupid action 13) President lies to people that WMD are present in Iraq in quantities
stupid action 14) President or VP leaks to press about CIA operative out of revenge for whistle blower who can prove Niger has no yellow-cake
stupid statement 15) President claims Niger is producing yellow-cake uranium
stupid action 16) President insults UN and refuses their continued help in searching for WMD
stupid action 17) President refuses to allow investigators to continue to search for WMD and goes to war
stupid action 18) President claims there's a link between al Qaida and Iraq
stupid decision 19) President cherry picks CIA evidence of situation in Iraq, says Hussein is evil because "He tried to kill my Daddy..."
stupid decision 20) President refuses to take part in Kyoto Protocols
|
sbenois
Supporter
Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 14635
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 6:23 pm: |
|
Great. Now would someone ask Madeleine Albright's (former Sec of State under Clinton lest you forget) consulting firm to stop lobbying on behalf of the deal?
BTW, is she part of the same nutty smokescreen plot that's been conjured up here?
|
Robert Livingston
Citizen
Username: Rob_livingston
Post Number: 1597
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 6:50 pm: |
|
Smarty: As my obsession with you continues, perhaps you can answer the following: Is it racist that the UAE doesn't recognize Israel officially, or even Israel's right to exist? Or is that something else? |
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 840
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 7:38 pm: |
|
tulip-
stupid action 21-that you would actually have a thought on your own instead of what left wing websites feed you?
Many of your points are highly questionable which I wont even waste my time on.
Ok, maybe one:
stupid decision 20) President refuses to take part in Kyoto Protocols -
SLK response: BUT the US still somehow manages to lower its emission rates throught other practices swhile saving jobs. In contrast, the top countries in the KP watch as their economies are damaged and their emission rates rise.
All your post proves is that you are all kneejerk and no bite....
-SLK |
Smarty Jones
Citizen
Username: Birdstone
Post Number: 415
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Friday, February 24, 2006 - 7:59 am: |
|
Livingston: In my opinion, YES, I think that is completely racist, although I think the more appropriate term is antisemitic, since their actions are driven by prejudice toward Jewish religion vs general skin color. In Tulip's case, she is willing to generalize that people in the Middle-East are easily linked to terrorists; al-Qeada is estimated to have 20,000 active members, 2000 of which represent the core, vs the total population in the Middle East of 200,000,000. Drawing unsubstantiated conclusions that these folks are linked to al-qaeda is a sweeping generalization, is unfair, and is racist.
A precise example demonstrating how ridiculous these claims are, would be if Central American countries refused to do business with the US on the grounds that the United States Government has links to the MS-13 gang, which has estimated 10,000 members operating (safe-harbored) in the US. The exact same arguments presented earlier apply: Gang members are known to be treated for gunshot wounds in US Hospitals...High-Level meetings have taken place between gang members and the FBI... Gang Members launder Millions of $$$ through US banks. Presto...the US Government is linked to MS-13, and ALL americans support their ways, and should be held accountable for their actions. (If you think my example is extreme, do a little research on the havoc MS-13 reaks upon El Salvador and Honduras....arguably far worse than Al-qaeda's affect on the US).
tulip- the first thing ANY graduate student learns is the academic approach to research. Articles from popular news magazines and news programs would be laughed off of campus. If you are not pretending to be a graduate student, than you are embarrassing your alma matta. I thought you were legitimately interested in discussing the point at hand, which you aren't, since you've now begun throwing around partisan/political barbs and accusations that have nothing to do with the topic of the thread. My bad for not recognizing that right away, and for paying any attention to your ignorant, uninformed, virulent rants. (thanks to the posters and PM's who tried to warn me earlier, which I chose to ignore...consider me wiser going forward). |
Dave
Supporter
Username: Dave
Post Number: 8761
Registered: 4-1997
| | Posted on Friday, February 24, 2006 - 9:07 am: |
|
Official: Explosion at Saudi oil refinery
Quote:CAIRO, Egypt (AP) -- An explosion occured Friday at a major oil refinery in Buqayq, eastern Saudi Arabia, a Saudi oil official said.
The explosion was caused by a vehicle packed with explosives that was detonated by the shots of security guards who fired on it as it tried to drive into the refinery, a reporter for the pan-Arab satellite channel Al-Arabiya TV said.
There was no immediate confirmation of the report from the Saudi authorities.
Earlier Al-Arabiya quoted its reporter in the kingdom as saying shots as well as an explosion were heard, and they may have been part of an attempt to attack the refinery.
The oil official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said he did not know the cause of the explosion.
Saudi Interior Ministry spokesman Lt. Gen. Mansour al-Turki told The Associated Press in Cairo: "I have no information. I am following this up."
The Baqiq refinery is a major oil complex on the eastern side of Saudi Arabia.
The al Qaeda terror group has long called for attacks on Saudi oil installations, accusing the country's government of selling oil to the West at cheap prices. The group is run by the Saudi-born Osama bin Laden who seeks to topple the Saudi monarchy and replace it with an Islamic state.
The Saudi authorities have said their oil facilities are well protected.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/02/24/saudi.refinery.ap/index.html
Timing is odd. Anyone think it could be an inside or CIA job to illustrate Saudis are victims, not perpetrators, of terror attacks? |
Guy
Supporter
Username: Vandalay
Post Number: 1572
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Friday, February 24, 2006 - 9:14 am: |
|
Pipeline fire under control. No damage to plant.
At least one less terrorist to worry about. |
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 842
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Friday, February 24, 2006 - 9:37 am: |
|
Here is a couple of more tulip doozies...
Stupid action 5) VP delays by three days an announcement that he's had a hunting accident
SLK response: Oh, so now it is three days? Gosh, the time keeps growing and growing.....
stupid action 6) VP has a hunting accident
SLK response-god forbid someone makes a mistake, even a stupid and potentially dangerous one. You seemed to overlook that he lived up to his mistake. But I forgot, he is a Republican-LYNCH HIM!
tulip, you soundbite kneejerkism shows no shame. From someone with so much education no less...what a waste....
-SLK
|
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 843
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Friday, February 24, 2006 - 9:39 am: |
|
tulip said:
"stupid action 13) President lies to people that WMD are present in Iraq in quantities."
Thanks for revealing your complete and utter ignorance with this one...Kneejerkism at its best.... |
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 3263
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 7:25 am: |
|
Smarty and SLK: What do you think of the lawsuits against Bush by
1) New Jersey
2) Miami
3) Port Authority of NY and NJ
and what do you think of today's headlines that a judge has ordered Bush to respond?
PS: Doing research for the message board is not exactly the same level as research for papers for my "alma matta" as you say. (The actual spelling is "alma mater" for "our mother.")
You are not exactly my social anthropology professor, are you?
|
sbenois
Supporter
Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 14642
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 7:58 am: |
|
Dearest Tulip,
I think the confusion on the spelling is because many of us are of the belief that you got your degree from Whatsamatta U.
Did you ever mention going there?
Thankey. |
tjohn
Supporter
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 4098
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 8:50 am: |
|
Sbenois,
You better back off or you'll get the 3rd degree from Tulip.
It's corny humor, I know, but I couldn't resist. |
Parkbench87
Citizen
Username: Parkbench87
Post Number: 3690
Registered: 7-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 8:52 am: |
|
Whatsamatta U is a great school. And they have a helluva football team. And Mooslvania is such a lovely setting for a college campus
 |
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 854
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 9:03 am: |
|
tulip-
I am all for asking questions about this port deal and have no problem PROFILING anyone/group when necessary. It is too bad the Dems can't admit that they are engaging in the latter. Acting tough while trying not to piss off their political base is what they are doing....
In other words, if a coyote kills my chickens I ain't going hunting for fox.
Or as my father-in-law, a retired court clerk of the Manhattan criminal Courts after 30 years periodically says: "it is a fact that 70% of drug trafficking on the NYS Thruways is done by black males between the ages of 18-30. So why then should we start paying attention to a 50 year old white male, just so we don't offend someone? Until we stop catching 18-30 black males and start catching an abundance of 50 year old white males hauling crack up 90, our attention are where they should be....
-SLK
|
tjohn
Supporter
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 4099
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 9:13 am: |
|
And what percentage of black males between the ages of 18-30 on the NYS Thruway are engaged in drug trafficking? If the percentage is very high, then the profiling makes sense. However, if the percentage is very low, the profiling will correctly be seen as harrassment.
Profiling also has to be balanced against the benefit of preventing a crime. Preventing a terrorist event is a lot more important than disrupting the flow of illegal drugs. |
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 861
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 10:27 am: |
|
tjohn-
I agree....just illustrating the bigger picture on profiling....there is nothing wrong with it and most of do it on a daily basis.
-SLK |
Ukealalio
Citizen
Username: Ukealalio
Post Number: 2544
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 11:03 am: |
|
Politicians and most people don't understand the maritime transportation business. Here are some facts:
*There are no U.S. owned, international container carriers left. They have all been purchased by foreign companies. Politicians (Both Republican and Democrats) couldn't care less about protecting them when they were around. When they were all gone, a few of these dim-bulbs woke up and started complaining-too late.
*U.S. military cargo is being carried on U.S. flag ships that are now under the control of a Danish company (and one whose founder was-unfortunately- in cahoots with a guy named Adolph during WW2-The Big One), a German company and a Singaporian company who is mostly owned by the Singapore govt. Not a peep from politicians or the press about this (they probably don't even understand whats going on here).
I am not entirely comfortable with this deal either with the UAE's unclear relations with some pretty dangerous people. If your upset about foriegn control of the international maritime industry, you're too late, the horse left the barn years ago.
My opinion is there is a lot of controls and checks and balances that have to be put on this deal. If your mad at politicians for letting the US Merchant Marine go, look for a 3rd party to support, the Dems and Repubs are equally at fault for negligence and ignorance. |
tjohn
Supporter
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 4102
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 11:07 am: |
|
One could argue that if you really thing the UAE company can't be trusted, it would be better to have them operating here because it will be easier to tap their communications.
With regard to profiling and such, what is the management structure of this company? Is it mostly white men with a symbolic Arab in charge. Such structures are not unheard of in the Middle East. |
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 3265
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 1:19 pm: |
|
Sbenois:
No, actually, my degrees were from Whattsamatta Whichoo U.!
DREW UNIVERSITY B.A.
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, M.A., ED.M.!!!
...and I really don't think it's profiling. Profiling in my book refers to the labelling of an entire group of people as suspicious, and a form of guilt by association.
In this case, there are specific INSTANCES in which the COUNTRY of Dubai has engaged in questionable activities, according to reliable press (and I don't see why Associated Press is unreliable, Smarty.)
ALSO
there has been mention of the fact that there is a statute which specifically enunciates the illegality of selling operations to
COUNTRIES. That's where the sovereignty issue comes up, because you are selling the RIGHTS to government, or decision-making concerning national operations to another sovereign (independent, self-governing) nation. Can anyone state that another NATION owns some aspect of port operations inside the US?
|
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 3266
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 1:32 pm: |
|
In other words this port deal rankles mainly because this country is
of the people, by the people and for the people
and not for the fiduciary benefit of any one sector of Dubai, Denmark, the Bush family, or the French...
or anyone, just everyone in the US.
Is that clear enough?
|
Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen
Post Number: 1595
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 4:24 pm: |
|
Actually, alma mater means "nourishing or fostering mother," not "our mother" as was posted above and not corrected until the master of good usage and language (yours truly) happened to espy it.
Now that you stand corrected, you may go on about your discussion. |
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 3277
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, February 26, 2006 - 3:18 pm: |
|
Innisowen:
I realized I had made an error when it was too late to correct it. Besides, I wasn't quite sure what "alma" meant.
Anyway, an additional point: I heard on one of the talk shows today that one of the rationales for going ahead with this port deal is that not to do so might be "insulting" to Dubai. One wonders, how can there be such a profound difference between the way we have treated the people of Iraq ("moving in militarily" shall we say) on the one hand, and being careful not to hurt Dubai's feelings? Did we think about hurting the citizens of Najaf's feelings when we approached their mosque, or the citizens of Pakistan when we bombed their village thinking that Al Quaida MIGHT be there?
If we are acting in the realm of POSSIBILITY, why are we not thinking about the POSSIBILITY of infiltration of insurgent forces from elsewhere in the Middle East, through NO fault of Dubai, into Dubai's dealings and oversight of our ports?
Talk about risk!!!
|
SO Ref
Citizen
Username: So_refugee
Post Number: 1531
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, February 26, 2006 - 3:35 pm: |
|
It's nice to know that four years ago I would have been cavity searched for attempting to carry fingernail clippers on board a plane but, now, all is well enough to trust the processing of shipping containers into the US to a foreign government.
Meanwhile, check out today's risk-o-meter at dhs.gov
 |
tjohn
Supporter
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 4105
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, February 26, 2006 - 3:44 pm: |
|
Has anybody identified specific risk scenarios? |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page