Arabs now control 6 Major US Ports .

Not a very deep article, to say the least. I'm not seeing the problem here except that a Saudi associated conglomerate has purchased the security company. Saudi ownership doesn't mean everyone checking shipments into the US will be wearing a kufiya and speaking arabic, just that the owners happen to be Saudi nationals. Does Chrysler corporation make kraut cars now that they are owned ny Mercedes Benz?

I thought they were a publicly traded company with stockholders, not owned and operated by the Saudi government. I think the article's author has a bit more responsibility to include such information instead of using a lack thereof as a scare tactic for political reasons.

Let's find out who are the major stockholders. THAT would make a better story.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Not a very deep article, to say the least. I'm not seeing the problem here except that a Saudi associated conglomerate has purchased the security company. Saudi ownership doesn't mean everyone checking shipments into the US will be wearing a kufiya and speaking arabic, just that the owners happen to be Saudi nationals. Does Chrysler corporation make kraut cars now that they are owned ny Mercedes Benz?

I thought they were a publicly traded company with stockholders, not owned and operated by the Saudi government. I think the article's author has a bit more responsibility to include such information instead of using a lack thereof as a scare tactic for political reasons.

Let's find out who are the major stockholders. THAT would make a better story.[/QUOTE]


I'm assuming the author of the article assumed that people know there 9-11 history.

But, anyways, here's a link to FOXNEWS:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,184599,00.html



Here are some more facts about Dubai:

– The UAE was one of three countries in the world to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.

– The UAE has been a key transfer point for illegal shipments of nuclear components to Iran, North Korea and Lybia.

– According to the FBI, money was transferred to the 9/11 hijackers through the UAE banking system.

– After 9/11, the Treasury Department reported that the UAE was not cooperating in efforts to track down Osama Bin Laden’s bank accounts.

- About half of the $250,000 spent on the attacks was wired to al-Qaida terrorists in the United States from Dubai banks, authorities said. Al-Qaida money in Dubai banks also has been linked to the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania.

-11 of the hijackers flew directly from Dubai to the USA.

- 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-Qaida.
 
here's another fact: dubai is essentially the banking capital and business hub of the middle east. Almost every one of the things you listed is easily explained by the position dubai occupies in the middle east.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']here's another fact: dubai is essentially the banking capital and business hub of the middle east. Almost every one of the things you listed is easily explained by the position dubai occupies in the middle east.[/QUOTE]

I can understand a few of those things but that doesn't justify there willingness to do buisness with shady people.
Recognizing the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan & Refusing to cooperate in efforts to track down Osama Bin Laden’s bank accounts should raise red flags about this situation.
 
[quote name='captaincold']I'm assuming the author of the article assumed that people know there 9-11 history.

But, anyways, here's a link to FOXNEWS:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,184599,00.html



Here are some more facts about Dubai:

– The UAE was one of three countries in the world to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.

– The UAE has been a key transfer point for illegal shipments of nuclear components to Iran, North Korea and Lybia.

– According to the FBI, money was transferred to the 9/11 hijackers through the UAE banking system.

– After 9/11, the Treasury Department reported that the UAE was not cooperating in efforts to track down Osama Bin Laden’s bank accounts.

- About half of the $250,000 spent on the attacks was wired to al-Qaida terrorists in the United States from Dubai banks, authorities said. Al-Qaida money in Dubai banks also has been linked to the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania.

-11 of the hijackers flew directly from Dubai to the USA.

- 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-Qaida.[/QUOTE]


That's all fine and good but the UAE is a country while Dubai Ports World is a publicly traded corporation with stockholders. Do you know who are the majority stockholders ? The entire premise of the article is a fallacy. it claims the security is being outsourced to the United Arab Emirates which is completely untrue. It's been contracted to Dubai. Can we get on the same page here, please ?
 
[quote name='bmulligan']That's all fine and good but the UAE is a country while Dubai Ports World is a publicly traded corporation with stockholders. Do you know who are the majority stockholders ? The entire premise of the article is a fallacy. it claims the security is being outsourced to the United Arab Emirates which is completely untrue. It's been contracted to Dubai. Can we get on the same page here, please ?[/QUOTE]


You do know that Dubai Ports World is mostly owned by the UAE,right?
It's basically a state owned buisness. That's why both Democrats & Republicans held a news conference to try to block this sale.

Anyone OK with a foreign company running 6 major USA Ports is stupid.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']I have to agree - any foreign control of US port security seems like a very bad idea.[/QUOTE]

I'd agree with that as well.
 
Dubya insists that he will veto any legislation that the House or Senate introduces to stop this deal. Funny that this will be the first time he'd veto anything. Talk about being WEAK on national security.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11474440/

bush_abdullah.jpg
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']I have to agree - any foreign control of US port security seems like a very bad idea.[/QUOTE]

Don't the Brits handle it now?

Anyway, some part of me wonders if this is creating national outrage because of a foreign entity controlling port security, or if it is because it is a country of "brown people." That this is the manifestation of a greater, deeper hatred of Arab nations, and Americans do not want to deal in business with any nations in the middle east - y'know, since every last person in every last middle eastern nation (except Israel) is a suspected terrorist?

At any rate, I'm torn. While I don't care for "outsourcing" our security control, I also think that something is missing here. Namely, the capability and execution of DHS. If DHS wasn't comprised of such bungling idiots who can't do a fucking thing short of reading a color chart, then there would be no worries about who controls port security. As it stands, it would be a foolish idea to trust that organization to get anything right, so I'm not certain I want to leave anything else up to chance.
 
Yeah, the more I think about this, the more that I feel it shouldn't really be an issue. The UAE has been an ally. Hell, we're even selling them fighter jets or something.

I have to laugh at all those right-wing fanatics that blasted Michael Moore for painting Dubya as a sell-out to the middle east who are now doing the same thing, though. :lol:
 
Yes, the Brits control it now and I'm still not sure why we would want to relinquish control of port security to a foreign company. There is a lot of prejudice in some of the arguments against the UAE and I'm not trying to be a part of that, but I do think it would be foolish to ignore that the UAE has some ties to terrorism. England is our strongest ally so I am not as concerned with them but I would still prefer US control. And how many of us actually knew about the British control of ports before this? I didn't.

Not to get too conspiracy minded, but exactly why is Dubya pushing so hard for this deal to go through? Do you think there are other things attached to this? Alledgedly the UAE has been involved in the extraordinary rendition of terrorist suspects, could this be playing a role? For a President who has so cloaked himself in national security to push this deal which seems so counterproductive to our port safety, it seems like there must be more to the deal. And if there is a legitimate reason for it, why couldn't they tip off Frist and avoid a very public battle with Congress? And what about the reports that Dubya wasn't even aware of the deal until this last weekend?
 
True, there is a definite distinction between certain "allies" to the U.S.. Some are more of an ally than the other.

MBE is right - there's something else going on with this deal that we don't know for sure, but can only speculate.
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']Yeah, the more I think about this, the more that I feel it shouldn't really be an issue. The UAE has been an ally. Hell, we're even selling them fighter jets or something.

I have to laugh at all those right-wing fanatics that blasted Michael Moore for painting Dubya as a sell-out to the middle east who are now doing the same thing, though. :lol:[/QUOTE]

The problem is, the leadership of the UAE allowed that country to become a hotbed for the type of militant Islam that led to the 9/11 attacks. We've given them a pass so far because of their oil resources, but that doesn't mean we need to actually provide them an opportunity to further harm us.

And if you think they aren't linked that closely.....

http://in.rediff.com/news/2004/mar/25osama.htm

The Central Intelligence Agency did not target Al Qaeda chief Osama bin laden once as he had the royal family of the United Arab Emirates with him in Afghanistan, the agency's director, George Tenet, told the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks on the United States on Thursday.

Had the CIA targeted bin Laden, half the royal family would have been wiped out as well, he said.
 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/22/AR2006022201609.html

Bush Unaware of Port Sale Before Congressional Opposition
 By Daniela Deane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, February 22, 2006; 3:06 PM

President Bush wasn't aware of the sale of six U.S. ports to an Arab company until after federal approval was granted and congressional opposition erupted over the deal, his spokesman said today

"This didn't rise to the presidential level," White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan told reporters at the daily briefing.

McClellan said Bush became aware only in the "last several days" of the controversial $6.8 billion sale of Britain's Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co., commonly known as P & O, to DP World, a state-owned company in Dubai in the United Arab Emirates.

President Bush Tuesday strongly defended DP World's attempt to take over the operation of seaports in Baltimore and five other U.S. cities and threatened a veto if Congress tries to kill the deal his administration has blessed.

McClellan admitted that the White House should have briefed members of Congress about the deal sooner, because, he said, some had gotten a "false impression" about the deal. He said the false impression was that an Arab company would be in control of six U.S. ports.

"This is not about control of our ports," McClellan said. "This is not about the security of our ports. One thing we will never do is outsource to anyone the control and security of our ports, whether that's Dubai or any other entity that operates terminals at our ports."

McClellan said the U.S. Coast Guard is in charge of physical security at American ports and the Customs and Border Patrol is in charge of cargo security.

*******
Wow, so he went from complete unawareness of the deal to being completely protective of it, in the face of considerable opposition to in Congress. A Man of Action, no one can deny.

...the conclusion that control of the ports is altogether unrelated to the deal is, of course, the final clincher. Security would not be effected by this deal, so we can all relax, now. Ahhhhh.....pass me a cool glass of lemonade, habib.
 
[quote name='RBM']President Bush wasn't aware of the sale of six U.S. ports to an Arab company until after federal approval was granted and congressional opposition erupted over the deal, his spokesman said today[/QUOTE]

I think this says a lot about the way the White House works: the way that Bush immediately defends a decision he didn't even know had been made tends to indicate that this sort of situation has come up before. Bush is nothing more than a puppet who's employed to put a friendly face on decisions made by people who prefer to operate in the shadows.
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']Further developments: the royal family of the UAE visited Osama in February 1999.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_11-4-2004_pg7_6[/QUOTE]

If you had bothered to read the 9/11 report in it's entirety, you would have already known all of the facts in your article. And, it was all happening well before George Bush took office or was even elected to office. Guess we should be blaming Clinton for pulling a James Buchanan.


And, re-reading the OP's quoted article, it mentions no takeover by Dubai of port security. But it does allude to the connection in the first paragraph. As has been reiterated by the president and his press secretary today, port operations would be changing ownership, not subversion of us customs or coast guard authority or US import laws or screening.

This entire story (as well as this thread title) is being purposefully misconstrued to convince people that arabs are controlling our ports. Nothing could be further from the truth. I personally, don't have a problem with arabs owning anything, I have a problem with terroritsts and racist people who believe that being an arab automatically means you are a terrorist sympathizer.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']If you had bothered to read the 9/11 report in it's entirety, you would have already known all of the facts in your article. And, it was all happening well before George Bush took office or was even elected to office. Guess we should be blaming Clinton for pulling a James Buchanan.


And, re-reading the OP's quoted article, it mentions no takeover by Dubai of port security. But it does allude to the connection in the first paragraph. As has been reiterated by the president and his press secretary today, port operations would be changing ownership, not subversion of us customs or coast guard authority or US import laws or screening.

This entire story (as well as this thread title) is being purposefully misconstrued to convince people that arabs are controlling our ports. Nothing could be further from the truth. I personally, don't have a problem with arabs owning anything, I have a problem with terroritsts and racist people who believe that being an arab automatically means you are a terrorist sympathizer.[/QUOTE]


Why are people trying to "spin" this into a anti-arab argument?
It's pathetic!!!

No one is saying that they're gonna be in charge of Security & EVERYONE(cnn,fox news, nbc, etc...) has pointed that out in full detail !!!!!

The problem is that THEY control all of the cargo that goes in and comes out of these ports. It's a known fact that our ports are the most vurnarable aspect of this country considering that only 5% of all cargo is searched.

It's just not a risk worth taking considering the UAE's past.
 
[quote name='captaincold']Why are people trying to "spin" this into a anti-arab argument?
It's pathetic!!!

No one is saying that they're gonna be in charge of Security & EVERYONE(cnn,fox news, nbc, etc...) has pointed that out in full detail !!!!!

The problem is that THEY control all of the cargo that goes in and comes out of these ports. It's a known fact that our ports are the most vurnarable aspect of this country considering that only 5% of all cargo is searched.

It's just not a risk worth taking considering the UAE's past.[/quote]

You put "arabs" into your threat title, and then commented "utterly ridiculous". In your topic title, and your first post, you only mentioned arabs, not the UAE.
 
It continues to get worse....the administration agreed to provisions in the deal that would shield Dubai Ports from litigation in the United States.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-5640688,00.html

Money graf:

The administration did not require Dubai Ports to keep copies of business records on U.S. soil, where they would be subject to court orders. It also did not require the company to designate an American citizen to accommodate U.S. government requests. Outside legal experts said such obligations are routinely attached to U.S. approvals of foreign sales in other industries.
 
I see nothing wrong with the deal. not because GWB says it, but simply because it's important for foreign investment. People are just whinning for the upcoming elections.
 
[quote name='dennis_t']The administration did not require Dubai Ports to keep copies of business records on U.S. soil, where they would be subject to court orders. It also did not require the company to designate an American citizen to accommodate U.S. government requests. Outside legal experts said such obligations are routinely attached to U.S. approvals of foreign sales in other industries.[/QUOTE]

So much for the whole 'thing is just a standard business deal, no different from dozens of other similar agreements.'

Just to sum up: We have a company that's laundered money for terrorists, owned by a government with ties to to the 9/11 hijackers, and Bush not only wants to give them control of 6 major ports but also thinks they should be immune to routine US business requirements for ensuring that their business is on the up-and-up. Or at least he would have wanted to give them control of major US ports, if he had known that the deal was going down. Don't worry, though - the deal has been cleared by the DoD, even if they do say they've never heard about it.

Nothing to see here, move along.
 
[quote name='Zoglog']we're all friends, can't we all just get along?[/quote]

yea!

and so what if the company is arabic, what is the article implying?

some badbacteria spoils all of the milk for us
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']You put "arabs" into your threat title, and then commented "utterly ridiculous". In your topic title, and your first post, you only mentioned arabs, not the UAE.[/QUOTE]

Well the UAE stands for, United Arab Emerites.

The "utterly ridiculous" part was directed at there terrorist's ties.


SIDE NOTE: The White House spokesperson revealed in the daily briefing yesterday that Bush found out about this deal while watching TV. :(
 
[quote name='captaincold']Well the UAE stands for, United Arab Emerites.

The "utterly ridiculous" part was directed at there terrorist's ties.


SIDE NOTE: The White House spokesperson revealed in the daily briefing yesterday that Bush found out about this deal while watching TV. :([/QUOTE]

Either Dubya is lying or is just a puppet for the neocons.
 
If I remeber correctly there are countries(WWII anyone?) that have companies here but people don't think that they are going to unleash a Nazi attack on american democracy. Yeah its a little outdated but these are companies, not countries. I think that by pushing this company away it is just going to cause more terrorists to join the Al-Quada cause. Just because you are from that area doesn't mean you are a terrorist. Yeah a majority of them come from there, but there are also a lot of people over there that don't agree with them. For being a country that is supposed to be "free" we are being very closed minded about it. I do agree though that this company should run under the same laws as all other companies that operate in the US.
 
Quick rundown, W claimed to have no idea about this fiasco until after he A) let it go through B)let it skip the usual security screenings and then C)threatened to veto it.
 
It appears that it is actually 21 U.S. ports that Dubai will own, not 6. I suspect that Congress will block this from happening, W will veto it, and then Congress will override his veto. I seem to recall W during the presidential debates that under no circumstances would he hand over U.S. security to other countries. Once again, it seems that he has lied to the American public. I predict this will be a major theme during this year's elections. I look forward to his impeachment.
 
[quote name='coffman']It appears that it is actually 21 U.S. ports that Dubai will own, not 6. I suspect that Congress will block this from happening, W will veto it, and then Congress will override his veto. I seem to recall W during the presidential debates that under no circumstances would he hand over U.S. security to other countries. Once again, it seems that he has lied to the American public. I predict this will be a major theme during this year's elections. I look forward to his impeachment.[/QUOTE]

W? Veto? Sheeeit. You're joking, right? Otherwise, I can see your predictions occurring.

Yes, G-Dub said precisely that in response to Kerry's belief in "passing the global test" before engaging in preemptive war.
 
[quote name='burningelf']If I remeber correctly there are countries(WWII anyone?) that have companies here but people don't think that they are going to unleash a Nazi attack on american democracy. Yeah its a little outdated but these are companies, not countries. I think that by pushing this company away it is just going to cause more terrorists to join the Al-Quada cause. Just because you are from that area doesn't mean you are a terrorist. Yeah a majority of them come from there, but there are also a lot of people over there that don't agree with them. For being a country that is supposed to be "free" we are being very closed minded about it. I do agree though that this company should run under the same laws as all other companies that operate in the US.[/QUOTE]

ummm, 1 they dont live here so the live "free" statement doesnt really go. As for countries that own companies here, i think that might be a little different than them owning some of our Security ports. Yes, i realize that another country owned it before them but, i think it is different than handing it to a country that has been proven to have terrorists in the country.

You cant stick up for Bush on this one asshole.
 
More good news, from one of Bush's own officials:

Joseph King, who headed the customs agency's anti-terrorism efforts under the Treasury Department and the new Department of Homeland Security, said national security fears are well grounded.

He said a company the size of Dubai Ports World would be able to get hundreds of visas to relocate managers and other employees to the United States. Using appeals to Muslim solidarity or threats of violence, al-Qaeda operatives could force low-level managers to provide some of those visas to al-Qaeda sympathizers, said King, who for years tracked similar efforts by organized crime to infiltrate ports in New York and New Jersey. Those sympathizers could obtain legitimate driver's licenses, work permits and mortgages that could then be used by terrorist operatives.

Dubai Ports World could also offer a simple conduit for wire transfers to terrorist operatives in the Middle East. Large wire transfers from individuals would quickly attract federal scrutiny, but such transfers, buried in the dozens of wire transfers a day from Dubai Ports World's operations in the United States to the Middle East would go undetected, King said.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/22/AR2006022201609.html?referrer=email
 
Newsflash: The Chinese own ports on the West coast. When that happened, a few Californians got in an uproar, but the rest of the U.S. was oblivious to it.

Think about it: who's the bigger threat? China or the UAE?

edit: posted too fast
 
[quote name='Apossum']Newsflash: The Chinese own all the ports on the West coast. When that happened, a few Californians got in an uproar, but the rest of the U.S. was oblivious to it.

Think about it: who's the bigger threat? China or the UAE?[/QUOTE]

None of the 9/11 hijackers were Chinese.....

That said, I would rather none of our ports be owned by foreign interests.
 
[quote name='dennis_t']None of the 9/11 hijackers were Chinese.....

That said, I would rather none of our ports be owned by foreign interests.[/QUOTE]


and as far as I know, none of the hijackers were members of the UAE either. They are businessmen, not islamic fundamentalist whack jobs. It's really amazing how much prejudice has gone into this issue...might as well as say all black people are members of the black panthers and are out to kill whitey--but that's an observation on how the mass media has dealt with this and in turn, swayed people's thoughts about it (not saying you are racist or prejudice dennis.)

in any case, while terrorists get a major strike in every once in a blue moon, the Chinese would rather undermine our economy in an attempt to take over the place as the world's #1 superpower. Also, they are technically the enemy. they could potentially be a nuclear threat, more so than, say, Iraq. and they've got the man power to take over the world, if they could get themselves rich, organized and trained. they're also crazy as shit in many senses. a communist-dictatorship rule of the people with an ever-increasingly capitalist economy? that's what I call scary.

but i'm not saying that we should be more worried about the chinese, i'm saying that just because people of a certain nationality own a port, doesn't mean they can just live out their country's fantasies about destroying the U.S. Thus, I thank the media for once again devoting so much of its energy and resources to a relatively inert, but superficially controversial subject. fail'd!

what might have been more interesting, instead playing the fear card, would be reporting on this as an example of how gloablization will force the world to live with each other, despite how much one country wishes to destroy another.
 
[quote name='Apossum']and as far as I know, none of the hijackers were members of the UAE either.[/QUOTE]

Two of the hijackers hailed from the UAE.

As far as prejudice is concerned, I find such concerns laughable after the Bushies have done all they could to conflate all Arab people as part of one big terrorist melting pot. Why else would we be in Iraq, which had no ties to the 9/11 terrorists?

Taking it a step further, the UAE has a record of being very cozy with al Queda. So why did we invade Iraq, but are perfectly okay letting the UAE control our ports?


http://www.newsday.com/news/nationw...24,0,4785404.story?coll=ny-nationalnews-print


WASHINGTON -- President George W. Bush calls the nation behind the port-security controversy a trusted ally, but the Sept. 11 commission offers another take - saying the CIA believed top United Arab Emirates officials had cozy relations with Osama bin Laden before 9/11.

The United States even believed it had a lead on bin Laden two years before the attacks but passed up on an air strike to kill him.

The reason: fears of taking out UAE princes or other senior officials believed to be hosting bin Laden at a remote hunting camp in Afghanistan, the commission's report said.
 
[quote name='dennis_t']Two of the hijackers hailed from the UAE.

As far as prejudice is concerned, I find such concerns laughable after the Bushies have done all they could to conflate all Arab people as part of one big terrorist melting pot. Why else would we be in Iraq, which had no ties to the 9/11 terrorists?

Taking it a step further, the UAE has a record of being very cozy with al Queda. So why did we invade Iraq, but are perfectly okay letting the UAE control our ports?


http://www.newsday.com/news/nationw...24,0,4785404.story?coll=ny-nationalnews-print


WASHINGTON -- President George W. Bush calls the nation behind the port-security controversy a trusted ally, but the Sept. 11 commission offers another take - saying the CIA believed top United Arab Emirates officials had cozy relations with Osama bin Laden before 9/11.

The United States even believed it had a lead on bin Laden two years before the attacks but passed up on an air strike to kill him.

The reason: fears of taking out UAE princes or other senior officials believed to be hosting bin Laden at a remote hunting camp in Afghanistan, the commission's report said.[/QUOTE]

okay i submit...i'd have to read more into this before going any further. like finding out how intertwined the UAE is with terrorists, for one thing.
maybe this is a trojan horse...who knows? but for some reason, I doubt much will come of it. maybe they'll be sold to someone else within a few years. of course, if something does go wrong with these ports, it's gonna be freaking ugly, as in us bombing the shit out of anyone we feel is marginally responsible (or hey, attacking a random uninvolved country...but that might be too insane, right? that might be going over the line and we'd never do that ;) ) that fear factor should be strong in the middle east.
 
Three points on this issue.

1. Bill O'Reilly claimed yesterday that the entire royal family of the UAE are on al Qaeda's "death list." Anyone know if that's accurate? I recall reading in a thread on this board that we couldn't blow up bin Laden one time because most of the UAE royal family was meeting with him. Those two statements don't seem to jive, obviously.

2. Agree with Reality's Fringe that large parts of the opposition to this deal are xenophobic. Most politicians against it are doing it for political expediency.

3. Why are some people, such as Harry Reid today, saying they are against companies owned by other countries owning ports in the U.S. when a Chinese government-owned company owns part of the Port of Los Angeles and most of these same people haven't said a damn thing about that? Goes to point 2 and political expediency.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Three points on this issue.

1. Bill O'Reilly claimed yesterday that the entire royal family of the UAE are on al Qaeda's "death list." Anyone know if that's accurate? [/QUOTE]


:lol: "Bill O'Reilly" and "accurate" are never two terms that I use together in one sentence.
 
[quote name='dennis_t']Two of the hijackers hailed from the UAE. [/quote]
So, the fact that an army sergent that hailed from the US and raped a 15 year old japaneese girl means that all americans are rapists and should not be allowed to occupy a millitary base in Japan.

As far as prejudice is concerned, I find such concerns laughable after the Bushies have done all they could to conflate all Arab people as part of one big terrorist melting pot. Why else would we be in Iraq, which had no ties to the 9/11 terrorists?

Taking it a step further, the UAE has a record of being very cozy with al Queda. So why did we invade Iraq, but are perfectly okay letting the UAE control our ports?
Click to expand...

You realize that he was kicked out of the UAE, right? You also realize Osama's sworn jihad against the Saudi families, right? You realize it's because they allow the infidels to land their war planes and dock their warships there, right? You realize that the UAE won't be "controlling" or "owning" our ports, right? You also realize your quoted article says Bin Laden "might" have been at the camp, right? And that it was during the Clintonista administration, right? You realize you are the one assuming all arabs are terrorists, not Bush, right ?

Somehow I don't think you know much about anything you write. Right? Right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top