Welcoming Terror to U.S. Ports

[rtwngAvngr]

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21413

Welcoming Terror to U.S. Ports
By Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld and Alyssa A. Lappen
FrontPageMagazine.com | February 24, 2006

President George W. Bush justifies the sale of the private British company that manages six U.S. ports to the government owned Dubai Ports World, saying that the United Arab Emirates (UAE) is a close ally of the U.S. in the war on terror. Indeed, the Jebel Ali terminal in Dubai transports at least 40% of US supplies to the troops in Iraq. Having the deepest port in the Persian Gulf, Dubai is critical for U.S. naval operations in the region. The UAE also provides air bases to support U.S. warplanes and stores materiel for U.S. forces. Moreover, it is also a major market for U.S. arms.


Not surprisingly, the President threatens to veto any legislation to block the deal and challenges lawmakers to “step up and explain why a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard" than the British company that ran the ports before.



There are many important differences. To begin with, a private company based in the U.K. a Western democracy with troops fighting along with U.S. soldiers in Iraq, contrasts sharply with the UAE, which supported al-Qaeda, sent 9/11 terrorists and funding, and continues to support Palestinian suicide bombers and particularly HAMAS, which President Bush calls “a terrorist organization.”



On July 27, 2005, the Palestinian Information Center carried a public HAMAS statement thanking the UAE for it’s “unstinting support.” The statement said: “We highly appreciate his highness Sheikh Khalifa Bin Zayed Bin Sultan Al-Nahyan (UAE president) in particular and the UAE people and government in general for their limitless support…that contributed more to consolidating our people's resoluteness in the face of the Israeli occupation".



The HAMAS statement continued: "the sisterly UAE had… never hesitated in providing aid for our Mujahid people pertaining to rebuilding their houses demolished by the IOF… The UAE also spared no effort to offer financial and material aids to the Palestinian charitable societies." Indeed, as documented by the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center at the Center for Special Studies (C.S.S), HAMAS charitable societies,” are known as integral parts of the HAMAS infrastructure, and are outlawed by Israel and the U.S.



The HAMAS statement included a special tribute: "One can never forget the generous donations of the late Sheikh Zayed Bin Sultan,” the father of the current UAE president. Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan al Nahayan of Abu Dhabi, was the first Arab leader to understand the importance of waging economic Jihad against the West, and was the first to use oil as a political weapon following the Yom Kippur War in 1973. On the eve of the 1991 Gulf War he branded the United States “our number two enemy” after Israel.



The multi-billionaire Sheikh Zayed, was an early patron of the PLO, and from the 1970’s until his death in 2004, contributed millions of dollars to the terror agenda of the PLO, HAMAS and Islamic Jihad.



Human Appeal International, a UAE government-operated “charitable” organization, whose board includes the UAE president, funds HAMAS as well as other Palestinian organizations, “martyrs,” Palestinian terrorists in Israeli prisons and their families. The HAI’s modus operandi is to transfer money to the Palestinian Red Crescent Organization whose West Bank and Gaza branches are operated by HAMAS. They, in turn, distribute the money to HAMAS “charities.”



For example, according to the Orient Research Center in Toronto, Canada, the UAE “compensation” plan for the Palestinian intifada in 2001 included $3,000 for every Palestinian shaheed, $2,000 for his family, $1,500 for those detained by Israel, $1,200 for each orphan. In addition, families of those terrorists whose homes Israel demolished each received $10,000.



Also in 2001, in support of the martyr’s families in the Palestinian intifada, two telethons were organized in the UAE. “We Are All Palestinians” raised 135 million dirham, or $36.8 million, and “For Your Sake Palestine” raised 350 million dirham, or $95.3 million.



According to a detailed report on March 25, 2005, in the Palestinian daily Al Hayat al-Jadeeda, the UAE Friends Society transferred $475,000, through the UAE Red Crescent, to West Bank “charitable” organizations in Hebron, Jenin, Nablus and Tulkarem to distribute to the families of “martyrs,” orphans, imprisoned Palestinians and others.



The Palestinian newspaper Al-Ayyam reported on March 22, 2005, that in 2004 the UAE Red Crescent donated $2 million to HAMAS “charities” to be distributed to 3,158 terrorists’ orphans.



On February 15, 2005, the HAMAS website reported on funds transferred from HAI to two HAMAS front organizations in the West Bank, IQRA and Rifdah, which Israel had outlawed. And last July, Osama Zaki Muhammad Bashiti of Khan Younis in Gaza was arrested as he returned from the UAE, for often transferring funds of as much as $200,000 at a time to the Gaza HAMAS branch. The suicide bombing and attacks, including one mortar attack on Gush Katif, caused the death of 44 Israeli civilians and dozens of injuries.



The UAE support of HAMAS is in line with the agenda promoted by the late Sheikh Zayed. His Zayed Center for International Coordination and Followup, founded in 1999 as the official Arab League think-tank, was shuttered under international pressure in 2003. It championed Holocaust deniers like Thierry Meyssan and Roger Garaudy and provided a platform for anti-Western, anti-Christian and anti-Jewish extremists like Saudi economist Dr. Yussuf Abdallah Al Zamel, who blamed the war in Iraq on "radical Zionist and right-wing Christian" influence.



Although UAE foreign Minister Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed al-Nahayan stated that the Emirates have been and remain a “strong ally of the U.S. in combating terrorism,” its continuing support of HAMAS and other Islamist organizations contradict his statement. This legitimately raises concerns about trusting U.S. ports to UAE management.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Let's all just jump off Bush's bone and think for a second.

 

[archangel]

and you really think reality will sway those in here who are goose-stepping to the party line and the head 'cheerleader' one who owned a ball park franchise vs those who actually played ball... :tng:

 

[dilloduck]

sent 9/11 terrorists

At least try to scare people by using the truth

 

[dilloduck]

The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) funds programs that help people living in the West Bank and Gaza lead healthier and more productive lives.

Since 1993, Palestinians have received more than $1.7 billion in U.S. economic assistance via USAID projects - more than from any other donor country.
http://www.usaid.gov/wbg/

Look out -- Americans can't be trusted !!!

 

[rtwngAvngr]

The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) funds programs that help people living in the West Bank and Gaza lead healthier and more productive lives.

Since 1993, Palestinians have received more than $1.7 billion in U.S. economic assistance via USAID projects - more than from any other donor country.
http://www.usaid.gov/wbg/

Look out -- Americans can't be trusted !!!

Yes. Ridiculousness is all you have left.

 

[dilloduck]

Yes. Ridiculousness is all you have left.

knock knock---may I borrow a cup of ridiculousness ?

 

[theim]

They don't "control" the ports. Don't get swept away in all this hysteria. The Dubai company would own the terminals, nothing more. The US Coast Guard will still controls security, US Customs still control container checking. Longshoremen will still unload the containers. I think a lot of Americans, I might even say a majority, still have the idea that this deal means kaffiya-wearing Arab militias patrolling the ports and al-Qaeda sympathizers on the cranes and Ahmed Abdul al-Kaboom selecting what containers get inspected.

 

[theim]

Perhaps you’re confused by the so-called “Ports Deal” flap, which is rapidly reaching “imbroglio” status. At least in the Italian papers. Let us recap.

A British firm with the quaint and bygone name of Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation company which controlled some American ports, and staffed the docks with Beefeaters and fierce Gurka soldiers who shot intruders on sight. They sold their interests to a company run by someone named Ladina Bin Osam, located in the fictional nation of “Dubai,” which is actually located in a PO box in Tehran. The company immediately announced plans to rechristen the docks “Martyr’s Gangways” and convert all cargo ships into troop transports that would fling plague-infected suicide bombers from off shore by means of catapults. Supporters of the deal point out that “Dubai,” which is how “Dubya” is pronounced in Arabic, is actually a great ally of the US, , despite the fact that the country’s seal shows the Twin Towers on fire, with the words “Bingo!” written below in elegant script. Pressed for comment, President Bush noted that critics should “wad up a sock and swallow it,” and that he would veto any attempt to veto the deal – unless it included $903 billion in additional spending, in which case, let’s talk.

While you read that, six al-Qaeda agents cleared customs in Mexico with a liter of VX nerve gas masquerading as a 7-Up jug.

Well, no. Disregard everything written so far. For that matter, disregard everything that follows and cut right to the sense of Uneasy Acquiescence, which is where you’ll be in a few months no matter who says what. The Ports Deal, as it’s known, will probably go through after enough Congresspersons get the chance to model the latest fashions before the cameras, and harrumph enough in front of witnesses to make us all feel secure.

Your correspondent hated the deal when the news first broke, and has been somewhat mollified by the quantity of smart right-wing war-fiends who are not concerned. Generals Tommy Franks and Peter Pace are on board, and neither seem like the sort of person to mutter “oh, whatev” when the possibility of secret-agent penetration arises.

more at link: http://www.lileks.com/screedblog/index.html

 

[rtwngAvngr]

They don't "control" the ports. Don't get swept away in all this hysteria. The Dubai company would own the terminals, nothing more. The US Coast Guard will still controls security, US Customs still control container checking. Longshoremen will still unload the containers. I think a lot of Americans, I might even say a majority, still have the idea that this deal means kaffiya-wearing Arab militias patrolling the ports and al-Qaeda sympathizers on the cranes and Ahmed Abdul al-Kaboom selecting what containers get inspected.

They will operate the terminals, And will know the contents of all container and the security procedures in place. This is good infor for an enemy. It's a bad idea all around. The majority of americans believe. Get off the bush koolaid.

 

[theim]

They will operate the terminals, And will know the contents of all container and the security procedures in place. This is good infor for an enemy. It's a bad idea all around. The majority of americans believe. Get off the bush koolaid.

First, the UAE isn't an enemy.

Second, http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c...hive/2006/02/23/BUGESHCVK01.DTL&type=business

...

APL, which manages terminals in Oakland, Los Angeles, Seattle and Alaska, is owned by the NOL Group, which is majority owned by the Singapore government.

The Chinese government owns part of a company that operates a terminal at the Port of Long Beach.

That company, Cosco Container Lines, a division of China Cosco, caused a stir similar to the current one back in 1998.

...

EDIT: Third, it's not Bush Koolaid. It's an economic transaction, not a government policy for cryin out loud. Bush has nothing to do with it.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

First, the UAE isn't an enemy.

Second, http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c...hive/2006/02/23/BUGESHCVK01.DTL&type=business

Hey. China shouldn't operate them either. The UAE is another two faced terrorist supporting mideast nation.

 

[Annie]

Hey. China shouldn't operate them either. The UAE is another two faced terrorist supporting mideast nation.

That's what I've been saying and saying, Congress must be pressured to act. A good first step, offer incentives to American companies to do fill these positions. That would be money well spent.

With that said, until they get something 'done', which is very unlikely considering where 'conservatives' are going, they should treat 'friendlies' the 'same.' Yes, UK should come under less scrutiny than those from ME, China, etc. Profiling is justified, not just in this case either.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

That's what I've been saying and saying, Congress must be pressured to act. A good first step, offer incentives to American companies to do fill these positions. That would be money well spent.

With that said, until they get something 'done', which is very unlikely considering where 'conservatives' are going, they should treat 'friendlies' the 'same.' Yes, UK should come under less scrutiny than those from ME, China, etc. Profiling is justified, not just in this case either.

Exactly!

 

[dilloduck]

That's what I've been saying and saying, Congress must be pressured to act. A good first step, offer incentives to American companies to do fill these positions. That would be money well spent.

With that said, until they get something 'done', which is very unlikely considering where 'conservatives' are going, they should treat 'friendlies' the 'same.' Yes, UK should come under less scrutiny than those from ME, China, etc. Profiling is justified, not just in this case either.

Lobbyist can pressure Congress in a way no citizen can hope to match.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Lobbyist can pressure Congress in a way no citizen can hope to match.

Except on voting day. YOUR making republicans look bad by clinging to this fantasy. Republicans should lead slamming this deal. The ones who want to get elected will.

 

[Annie]

Lobbyist can pressure Congress in a way no citizen can hope to match.

You are clueless. I promise that if 3% of the constituents were to write/call their representatives, they will be heard 99.9% of the time.

Lobbyists are always willing to wait, the activated constituents need to be dealt with NOW.

 

[dilloduck]

You are clueless. I promise that if 3% of the constituents were to write/call their representatives, they will be heard 99.9% of the time.

Lobbyists are always willing to wait, the activated constituents need to be dealt with NOW.

Maybe the constituents ARE being heard and we're seeing the results. Exactly what is it that you think constituents need to be telling representatives? Quit taking bribes?

 

[Annie]

Maybe the constituents ARE being heard and we're seeing the results. Exactly what is it that you think constituents need to be telling representatives? Quit taking bribes?

I think you are correct. For most Americans, this just hasn't made sense from the get go. Now, the administration has time to explain or hope people forget. But if the people don't hear what they want or don't lose interest, the congressmen will hear from them again. Since normally few write/call, more than a few, stand for much greater % and that is understood.

Lobbyists, will be back another day and fight later.

 

[dilloduck]

I think you are correct. For most Americans, this just hasn't made sense from the get go. Now, the administration has time to explain or hope people forget. But if the people don't hear what they want or don't lose interest, the congressmen will hear from them again. Since normally few write/call, more than a few, stand for much greater % and that is understood.

Lobbyists, will be back another day and fight later.

I sure as hell can't make any sense of it because facts are few and far between. IMHO neither side has provided enough details for the public to make an INFORMED decision.