Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

MaaaD · Feb 15, 2006

some guys over at the US are nervous about Dubai controlling their ports:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,184599,00.html
http://www.nysun.com/article/27635
http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/200602 ... -5104r.htm

ofcourse in a great show of american ignorance they see this as a threat to the national security. Instead of thinking that oh ya Dubai has been able to maintian no security threats in a region where not one country has been immune to terrorist attacks, so maybe they might actually help us ! nooooooooooooooo they are Al Qaeda funding/terrorist loving A-rabs

MaaaD · Feb 15, 2006

btw i wrote letters to the editors of the three websites, i encourage you to do so too.

shafique · Feb 15, 2006

I've been going to the States on business every year since 2003 - I'm amazed at the view most people there have of the outside world.

You may have heard that a healthy majority* of people thought that Iraq had something to do with 9/11 - I'm not sure whether this notion has changed since the polls were done (about the time of the invasion).

*(something like 70% of people asked, if I remember correctly)

Anyway - I predict there will be more protectionist policies enacted as the US economy implodes over the next few years/decades. We are seeing the waning the US 'empire' / sphere of influence / 'civilisation'.. it remains to be seen whether there is a peaceful transition to China or whether it will go kicking and screaming...

Students of history will note that civilisations/empires go in cycles and that as empires go, the US on course for having one of the shortest reigns at the top - it shone brightly, but burnt out quickly. Compare this with the British, Islamic, Roman, Greek, Egyptian etc empires that went before.

Note that 'empire' is being used here to indicate the power that comes with control of economies and means of production, which historically has meant ruling areas of land, but recently is done via economic subjugation (ooh err missus - a bit of politics there...)

[gets off hobby horse]

Cheers,
Shafique

arniegang · Feb 15, 2006

Shaf

You appear to be slipping in quite a bit of humour of late.

You ok mate?? :wink:

shafique · Feb 15, 2006

Arnie - Just a bit de-mob happy at the moment, trying to juggle handovers at work and finalising all the bits and bobs required for a wholesale relocation!

I'm amazed that everything's going smoothly thus far, but I'm certainly feeling the stress and I'm using the forums as a pleasant distraction.

..

cheers,
Shafique

arniegang · Feb 15, 2006

I can tell mate in the tone of your posting.
Also you seem to be posting rather a lot in work time you little scamper

:wink:

Richard Owl Mirror · Feb 24, 2006

Hello to All,
My name is Richard Owl Mirror and I am an American who does have grave concerns over this port deal.
The point most people are missing regarding this deal is that a company run by a Government can alter their business practices dependant upon the construct of the ruling Government. That being said, it is not advisable to have a company which can change it's practices based upon who holds the Keys to the Kingdom (so to speak)

Now the current Leader/Ruler, Crown Prince Sheik Saad Al Abdullah Al Sabah (as of Jan. 2006) might be a great person and friend to the United states but, what would happen if he were to fall from his Role and another not so popular or friendly person assumed control of your country?
With the wave of a hand, YOUR COUNTRY could disable 8 of MY Nations ports, stifling commerce and trade. Not to mention that 2 of the 8 ports are used to move 40% of the US Military equipment today.

One other point, your Federation is controlled by leaders of city/states which could alter the balance of reason on a moments notice.

Why should America be subjected to that amount of uncertainty ?

shafique · Feb 24, 2006

Richard, firstly welcome.

Could you explain to me exactly how the company could 'disable' the 8 ports? This is a genuine question, not rhetorical or sarcastic, just exploring how you came to this view.

P&0's revenue is largely from the Far East, the US ports only generate 12% of the revenue. The deal is really to cash in on these ports and the US ports come along as part of the deal. Also, I take it you are aware that ownership of the ports will still be in American hands.

To use an Americanism - 'where's the beef'?

I look forward to your views.

Cheers,
Shafique

Richard Owl Mirror · Feb 24, 2006

shafique wrote:Richard, firstly welcome.

Could you explain to me exactly how the company could 'disable' the 8 ports? This is a genuine question, not rhetorical or sarcastic, just exploring how you came to this view.

P&0's revenue is largely from the Far East, the US ports only generate 12% of the revenue. The deal is really to cash in on these ports and the US ports come along as part of the deal. Also, I take it you are aware that ownership of the ports will still be in American hands.

To use an Americanism - 'where's the beef'?

I look forward to your views.

Cheers,
Shafique

Thank you for the warm welcome shafique

Now, I'm stating a hypothetical here but, one that must be considered.

Let's say that a change of attitude were to appear within the Ruling Government of the UAE toward the US. All that would be required of this DB World is to simply place their resources in mothballs. Simply closing down operations is a business owners right.

In America we have a law which states that the Military is forbidden from operations on US soil.
IF the above were to occur, my nation would not have the legal authority to take over those assets during a time of crisis.

People in my Country are not scared or frieghtened that this deal would allow terrorists into our country or that shipments of WMD could make their way through these ports, furthermore the citizens of this country are not racists as is being reported. We simply wish to ensure that another Government can not change our way of life.
Which, theoretically, this deal could do if nefarious forces were to assume control in the future.

The current Administration will not be in power very much longer !
And the same can be said of the Rulers of the UAE.

shafique · Feb 24, 2006

Thanks for your reply (I'm not American, so excuse any stupid questions I may ask)

1. Can you clarify what the national guard is and whether they are authorised to conduct operations on US soil.

2. Aren't you just as at risk from industrial actions - say port workers striking - as you are from say Dubai Port Authorities deciding to make it difficult to operate the port?

I'm still struggling to see what is causing the anxiety on your part? What could the Dubai port authority do to 'change our way of life'??

Many thanks,
Shafique

Richard Owl Mirror · Feb 24, 2006

shafique wrote:Thanks for your reply (I'm not American, so excuse any stupid questions I may ask)

1. Can you clarify what the national guard is and whether they are authorised to conduct operations on US soil.

2. Aren't you just as at risk from industrial actions - say port workers striking - as you are from say Dubai Port Authorities deciding to make it difficult to operate the port?

I'm still struggling to see what is causing the anxiety on your part? What could the Dubai port authority do to 'change our way of life'??

Many thanks,
Shafique

The National Guard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... onal_Guard

The United States National Guard is a significant component of the United States armed forces military reserve. The Militia Act of 1903, also known as the banana Act, organized the various state militias into the present National Guard system. Because the National Guard remains under the authority of the states (unless called into federal service), it should not be confused with the reserves of the various services which serve primarily as training units for replacements to active component forces.

I am currently working on presenting Congress with a proposal to remedy this problem.
Under STATE authority, the National Guard may undertake actions which are otherwise forbidden of the US Military. This problem was made manifest during the New Orlean's debacle of Hurrican katrina.
There was a dire need for a Military efficiency directive during this disaster and yet, by law, the president was forbidden from sending in the much needed assistance due to the Law Enforcement clause known as the Posse Comitatus Act.
The various State militia were permitted to conduct search and rescue activity as well as police actions EXCEPT that there was debate regarding if they were under Federal Control or not.

at risk from industrial actions
There is a US legal clause which deals with this at the presidential level but, when Military assets are in question we must defer back to the Posse Comitatus Act.
The Great Debate ongoing in my Country is, why we should set ourselves up for this Constitutional crisis.

I have just completed writing on an American Forum a question which I pose for others to consider.
You may find it of interest also.

WHO is actually the Leader of the United Arab Emirates and could/did this Leadership change in the future ?

According to their webiste @ Current members of the Supreme Council @ http://www.uae-embassy.com/uae-politics.htm

HH President Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan, Ruler of Abu Dhabi
HH Vice-President and Prime Minister Sheikh Maktoum bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Ruler of Dubai
HH Dr Sheikh Sultan bin Mohammed Al Qasimi, Ruler of Sharjah
HH Sheikh Saqr bin Mohammed Al Qasimi, Ruler of Ras al-Khaimah
HH Sheikh Rashid bin Ahmed Al Mu'alla, Ruler of Umm al-Qaiwain
HH Sheikh Humaid bin Rashid Al Nuaimi, Ruler of Ajman
HH Sheikh Hamad bin Mohammed Al Sharqi, Ruler of Fujairah

But, does this reflect the Truth ?
(perhaps they are simply behind the times in updating their website)

Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan, the founder of the UAE and ruler of the federation since 1971, died in November 2004.
His son succeeded him.

In Jan. 2006, Sheik Maktoum bin Rashid Al Maktoum, the prime minister of the UAE and the emir of Dubai, died.
Crown Prince Sheik Saad Al Abdullah Al Sabah assumed both roles.

Now, I bring this point up because , ... it shows how volatile the leadership Role of the United Arab Emirate is & can be in the future.

" The Federal National Council (FNC) has 40 members drawn from the emirates on the basis of their population, with eight for each of Abu Dhabi and Dubai, six each for Sharjah and Ras al-Khaimah, and four each for Fujairah, Umm al-Qaiwain and Ajman. The selection of representative members is left to the discretion of each emirate and the members’ legislative term is deemed to be two calendar years. "

We may truly have a friend in the Leadership of the UAE today but, who can guarantee this friendship into the future when the Leadership is based upon both population and hereditary ascension.

Once again: Any one of these Tribal, City/State leaders could assume Power of the UAE.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HH President Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan, Ruler of Abu Dhabi
HH Vice-President and Prime Minister Sheikh Maktoum bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Ruler of Dubai
HH Dr Sheikh Sultan bin Mohammed Al Qasimi, Ruler of Sharjah
HH Sheikh Saqr bin Mohammed Al Qasimi, Ruler of Ras al-Khaimah
HH Sheikh Rashid bin Ahmed Al Mu'alla, Ruler of Umm al-Qaiwain
HH Sheikh Humaid bin Rashid Al Nuaimi, Ruler of Ajman
HH Sheikh Hamad bin Mohammed Al Sharqi, Ruler of Fujairah

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Remember, the first TWO names have recently changed and I have yet been able to discover the manner in which either died.

OK, all that having been said, I found two maps of Dubia, UAE which I think everyone will find of interest.

http://www.gis.gov.ae/en/downloads/pdfs ... ojects.pdf
&
http://www.dubai.ws/dubai_map.htm

I also stumbled across this forum @ http://www.dubaiforums.com

One more point in closing, here is a bit of history taken from the UAE Government website.

Formation Of The Federation

Following the British termination of their agreements with the Trucial States (the name by which they were formally known), the rulers of the seven emirates established a federal state officially entitled Dawlat al Imarat al Arabiyya al Muttahida (State of the United Arab Emirates).

The philosophy behind the state was explained in a statement which was released on 2 December 1971 when the new state was formally established:

The United Arab Emirates has been established as an independent state, possessing sovereignty. It is part of the greater Arab nation. Its aim is to maintain its independence, its sovereignty, its security and its stability, in defense against any attack on its entity or on the entity any of its member Emirates. It also seeks to protect the freedoms and rights of its people and to achieve trustworthy cooperation between the Emirates for the common good. Among its aims, in addition to the purposes above described, is to work for the sake of the progress of the country in all fields, for the sake of providing a better life for its citizens, to give assistance and support to Arab causes and interest, and to support the Charter of the United Nations and international morals.

The underlined portion above should give American's cause to pause.

IF DB World Ports were simply a foreign owned company, the above concerns would not be present.

shafique · Feb 25, 2006

Thanks for clarifying what the National Guard is - and good luck with your efforts in lobbying Congress.

Can I ask why the underlined phrase gives you cause for concern?

Would you still have a concern if the word 'Arab' were substituted by 'Japanese', 'European' or 'American'..

How are 'Arab causes' any different from 'European causes'? If you tickle an arab, does he not laugh...

If someone said their aim was to preserve the 'American way' - would I be right to interpret this as promoting the Timothy McVeighs (sp?), the Ku Klux Klan, southern rednecks etc etc - or would that be an unfair stereotyping of 'American causes'??

Or perhaps there is some other concern with the stated aim to promote national causes of the nation the speaker belonged to?

With all due respect, I'm still struggling to see what the issue is.

I quote from today's Evening Standard in London, pg 24:
"US port industry leaders are baffled by the national security claims. They say security is handled by government agencies and has little to do with who actually runs the ports."

Do you disagree with these leaders?

Cheers,
Shafique

Richard Owl Mirror · Feb 25, 2006

shafique wrote:Thanks for clarifying what the National Guard is - and good luck with your efforts in lobbying Congress.

Can I ask why the underlined phrase gives you cause for concern?

Would you still have a concern if the word 'Arab' were substituted by 'Japanese', 'European' or 'American'..

How are 'Arab causes' any different from 'European causes'? If you tickle an arab, does he not laugh...

If someone said their aim was to preserve the 'American way' - would I be right to interpret this as promoting the Timothy McVeighs (sp?), the Ku Klux Klan, southern rednecks etc etc - or would that be an unfair stereotyping of 'American causes'??

Or perhaps there is some other concern with the stated aim to promote national causes of the nation the speaker belonged to?

With all due respect, I'm still struggling to see what the issue is.

I quote from today's Evening Standard in London, pg 24:
"US port industry leaders are baffled by the national security claims.
They say security is handled by government agencies and has little to do with who actually runs the ports."

Do you disagree with these leaders?

Cheers,
Shafique

How are 'Arab causes' any different from 'European causes'?

Because unlike the American example, I read 'Arab causes' the exact same as 'Islamic cause' which today seems bent on destroying Western Civilization.
As you rightly point out, there are many flavors of American's as there are Arabs.
The viewpoint from this side of the Pond is that most, if not all Muslims see it as their solemn duty that Islam rule over every individual.
That 'cause' is not America's 'cause'.
In the minds of those who are consistantly attacked by islamic fundamentalism, an 'Arab causes' is interchangable with 'Islamic cause' .

I quote from today's Evening Standard in London, pg 24:
"US port industry leaders are baffled by the national security claims.
They say security is handled by government agencies and has little to do with who actually runs the ports."

Do you disagree with these leaders?

Are you implying that this deal is merely so the UAE can 'count beans' ?
While it is true that our Homeland security as well as the Coast Guard handles the bulk of any Security measures, there are many many more security related issues which I could address as well as have addressed previously.

Manpower in employment, work stoppage or closure of a vital interest, etc...
There are many national security concerns that are not taken into account by these so-called experts as they are simply counting security forces and not these other security risks which are not as well defined.

I can not sit here and make the claim that the Rulers of the Federation of Arab States in the UAE are not friendly toward America. After all, they apparently have cooporated with the US forces after Sept. 11th, 2001.

That doesn't mean that underlings do not harbor sympathies for those who would do us harm without these rulers knowledge.

Personally, I do not trust either the UAE or my Government to protect this Nation.
Let's take as an example, pre-911 history.

1) The emirates was one of just three countries that established diplomatic relations with the Taliban once they took power in Afghanistan.

2) In February of 1999, Afghans working for the CIA said they had located Osama bin Laden in an Afghan desert hunting camp used by royalty from the United Arab Emirates. A C-130 military plane owned by the UAE air force was at the camp. The Sept. 11 Commission's report described how a planned missile strike on the camp was called off to avoid killing anyone in the UAE ruling families, which could jeopardize U.S. military ties with the emirates.

3) Two of the Sept. 11 hijackers were from the UAE.

4) Abdul Qadeer Khan, father of Pakistan's nuclear bomb and later the head of a global nuclear black market, based part of his operations in warehouses of Dubai's Jebel Ali port.

5) UAE is a DRUG transhipment point (& money laundering)
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/fac ... os/ae.html

And much, much more .................

Now, like I said, those at the top might not be directly involved TODAY but, how can Americans rely that will remain the case :?:

kanelli · Feb 25, 2006

ROM, it has been interesting to read your posts, but I still don't see what the beef is. The official word from the US government is that there was dialogue about the concerns of some people, but there is no objection to the deal. Even though two 9/11 hijackers came from the UAE doesn't mean that there is a grave danger to port operations in the US on the part of DPW. If it also an issue that possible terrorism money flowed through Dubai, I'd like to point out that money for terrorism has been flowing through many countries, including the UK. I disagree that Arab causes can be interchanged with Islamic causes.

shafique · Feb 25, 2006

ROM, as with Kanelli - I continue to fail to see any justifiable concern.

You equate Arab with Islam - a fair equation in the most part - but then seem to be equating Islam with terrorism and as an enemy of the Western way of life.

I will be charitable and put this down to a misunderstanding of the religion and the people who follow this religion. There are over one billion muslims in the world and many of these muslims live in the West. We see no contradiction with the teachings of a fundamentally peaceful religion that teaches justice, tolerance and respect of human rights.

You could judge all Catholics according to the actions of the IRA who blew up innocent women and children who were out shopping, you could judge all Hindus by the actions of the suicide bombers (women mostly) in Sri Lanka, you could also judge all Israelis by the actions of the first parliamentarians who were complicit in the first modern day terrorist action - the blowing up of the King David hotel..

You could judge Americans by the actions of David Coresh, the KKK etc.

You can similarly judge all muslims by the actions of Al Qaeda.

Suffice to say that I find myself, for once, actually agreeing with President Bush on this issue - there is no reason to be concerned and all reasons that you have come up with haven't convinced me, or kanelli for that matter

Take care

Shafique

Richard Owl Mirror · Feb 25, 2006

kanelli wrote:ROM, it has been interesting to read your posts, but I still don't see what the beef is. The official word from the US government is that there was dialogue about the concerns of some people, but there is no objection to the deal. Even though two 9/11 hijackers came from the UAE doesn't mean that there is a grave danger to port operations in the US on the part of DPW. If it also an issue that possible terrorism money flowed through Dubai, I'd like to point out that money for terrorism has been flowing through many countries, including the UK. I disagree that Arab causes can be interchanged with Islamic causes.

If it also an issue that possible terrorism money flowed through Dubai, I'd like to point out that money for terrorism has been flowing through many countries, including the UK.

Yet, those in the Leadership of those 'other' countries have not been complicit in assisting that money to flow.

Even though two 9/11 hijackers came from the UAE doesn't mean that there is a grave danger to port operations in the US on the part of DPW.

I disagree as DPW will be afforded visa's and entry to our Nation with little to no review of the personel being sent.
And why would our CIA sign off on this company being exempt from retaining their paperwork in this country when for every other company it is mandatory?
Again, why would the CIA exempt DPW from designating an American citizen as a contact person in the USA when for every other company it is mandatory?

These two glaring points are very suspect in my mind.

Perhaps DPW is a CIA-company and this is why these restrictions were removed?

Sorry but, this whole deal sounds much too shady for me to rely upon for the security of my family and fellow citizens.

sniper420 · Feb 26, 2006

Richard Owl Mirror wrote:Hello to All,
My name is Richard Owl Mirror and I am an American who does have grave concerns over this port deal.
The point most people are missing regarding this deal is that a company run by a Government can alter their business practices dependant upon the construct of the ruling Government. That being said, it is not advisable to have a company which can change it's practices based upon who holds the Keys to the Kingdom (so to speak)

Now the current Leader/Ruler, Crown Prince Sheik Saad Al Abdullah Al Sabah (as of Jan. 2006) might be a great person and friend to the United states but, what would happen if he were to fall from his Role and another not so popular or friendly person assumed control of your country?
With the wave of a hand, YOUR COUNTRY could disable 8 of MY Nations ports, stifling commerce and trade. Not to mention that 2 of the 8 ports are used to move 40% of the US Military equipment today.

One other point, your Federation is controlled by leaders of city/states which could alter the balance of reason on a moments notice.

Why should America be subjected to that amount of uncertainty ?

Well if ur country was so concerned with the security why the hell did it sell the ports in first place? It should have been nationalised. rich ppl getting thick and fatter......

sniper420 · Feb 26, 2006

Richard Owl Mirror wrote:Because unlike the American example, I read 'Arab causes' the exact same as 'Islamic cause' which today seems bent on destroying Western Civilization.

HAHAHA Typical American citizen mentality. That's the reason ur @ss is getting wacked more than Canada

Richard Owl Mirror wrote:Personally, I do not trust either the UAE or my Government to protect this Nation.
Let's take as an example, pre-911 history.

1) The emirates was one of just three countries that established diplomatic relations with the Taliban once they took power in Afghanistan.

2) In February of 1999, Afghans working for the CIA said they had located Osama bin Laden in an Afghan desert hunting camp used by royalty from the United Arab Emirates. A C-130 military plane owned by the UAE air force was at the camp. The Sept. 11 Commission's report described how a planned missile strike on the camp was called off to avoid killing anyone in the UAE ruling families, which could jeopardize U.S. military ties with the emirates.

3) Two of the Sept. 11 hijackers were from the UAE.

4) Abdul Qadeer Khan, father of Pakistan's nuclear bomb and later the head of a global nuclear black market, based part of his operations in warehouses of Dubai's Jebel Ali port.

5) UAE is a DRUG transhipment point (& money laundering)
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/fac ... os/ae.html

And much, much more .................

Now, like I said, those at the top might not be directly involved TODAY but, how can Americans rely that will remain the case

Blah Blah Blah........ There are many countries where the money did flow to terrorists' accounts. Uae does not even account 1/3rd of the drug flow compared to Columbians and otehr South Amerocan crap. As far as Nuke is concerned, UAE didn't transport nukes to North Korea , if it did they would have notified USA. If the deal does not go on, then it will further divide the American and Arab interests creating even more problems.

Did u know less than 20% of the containers coming are checked ? If this is the case, then the ships coming from other countries have the risk of carrying dangerous materials.

kanelli · Feb 26, 2006

Richard Owl Mirror wrote:
kanelli wrote:ROM, it has been interesting to read your posts, but I still don't see what the beef is. The official word from the US government is that there was dialogue about the concerns of some people, but there is no objection to the deal. Even though two 9/11 hijackers came from the UAE doesn't mean that there is a grave danger to port operations in the US on the part of DPW. If it also an issue that possible terrorism money flowed through Dubai, I'd like to point out that money for terrorism has been flowing through many countries, including the UK. I disagree that Arab causes can be interchanged with Islamic causes.

If it also an issue that possible terrorism money flowed through Dubai, I'd like to point out that money for terrorism has been flowing through many countries, including the UK.

Yet, those in the Leadership of those 'other' countries have not been complicit in assisting that money to flow.

Even though two 9/11 hijackers came from the UAE doesn't mean that there is a grave danger to port operations in the US on the part of DPW.

I disagree as DPW will be afforded visa's and entry to our Nation with little to no review of the personel being sent.
And why would our CIA sign off on this company being exempt from retaining their paperwork in this country when for every other company it is mandatory?
Again, why would the CIA exempt DPW from designating an American citizen as a contact person in the USA when for every other company it is mandatory?

These two glaring points are very suspect in my mind.

Perhaps DPW is a CIA-company and this is why these restrictions were removed?

Sorry but, this whole deal sounds much too shady for me to rely upon for the security of my family and fellow citizens.

I've heard nothing about any of your claims in this post. Were you reading something in particular that gave these facts?

Where is the proof that UAE leaders were complicit in assisting the money to flow? I'm sure you are well aware that the UAE is made up of approximately 80% foreigners. The UAE is very liberal and has been building free zones and developments to house businesses and expats from around the world. If the UAE leaders were so anti-US - why would they be doing so much business with the US. Why would they funnel money into terrorist activities on US soil? I'm very skeptical about UAE leadership involved in terrorism funding.

I've never heard about any restrictions being removed for DPW. You'd have to send me a link to what you were reading.

Richard Owl Mirror · Feb 27, 2006

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nypost/20060214 ... insecurity

http://snipurl.com/mok8 (http://today.reuters.com/investing/financeArticle)...

http://tinyurl.com/znrq2 (www.washingtonpost.com)

Appendix A: The Financing of the 9/11 Plot
http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_sta ... in_App.pdf

(simply type in UAE under the search function of the above PDF file)

MaaaD · Feb 27, 2006

It is hypocritical for America to want democracy in the Middle East, to champion capitalism as the best economic framework while pushing for reform, transparency, and anticorruption practices in its businesses, and then turn protectionist when a Dubai-owned company turns up on our shores having played the capitalist takeover game responsibly and transparently.

more at :

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0224/p09s01-coop.html

Richard Owl Mirror · Feb 27, 2006

MaaaD wrote:
It is hypocritical for America to want democracy in the Middle East, to champion capitalism as the best economic framework while pushing for reform, transparency, and anticorruption practices in its businesses, and then turn protectionist when a Dubai-owned company turns up on our shores having played the capitalist takeover game responsibly and transparently.

more at :

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0224/p09s01-coop.html

... and then turn protectionist when a Dubai-owned company turns up on our shores having played the capitalist takeover game responsibly and transparently.

Corporate take-over usually do not result in the deaths of thousands, possibly Millions of people.

You folks seem to think that our fears are due to the Ruling Elite of your Country or their participation in this Company, that is not the case.

IT IS the infiltration by terrorist-minded people in your society, employed by your government and state-owned companies which raises questions about MY Security.

This particular deal grants your country access to Security knowledge they would not have otherwise because of the involvement.
That knowledge can not be guarenteed to remain a secret from our enemies.

So please quit with the RACE CARD hyperbole and deal with the facts that in YOUR Society, there do exist people who wish to murder innocent people and WE will protect ourselves from that happening to the USA again.

Liban · Feb 27, 2006

bla bla bla

kanelli · Feb 27, 2006

ROM, you are paranoid and buying into all the Islamophobia. If a UK company can run port operations in the US, why can't a UAE company? There are Muslim extremists in the UK, just as there are in the UAE. Terrorism money flows through the UK, terrorists flow through the UK. Extremists could be working at the ports and the airports in every Western country etc. There is no evidence of increased danger with a UAE company running the ports.

MaaaD · Feb 27, 2006

Liban bisharafak what kind of answer is this ? kenalli thank you !

Richard Owl Mirror · Feb 27, 2006

kanelli wrote:ROM, you are paranoid and buying into all the Islamophobia. If a UK company can run port operations in the US, why can't a UAE company? There are Muslim extremists in the UK, just as there are in the UAE. Terrorism money flows through the UK, terrorists flow through the UK. Extremists could be working at the ports and the airports in every Western country etc. There is no evidence of increased danger with a UAE company running the ports.

True but, the above company Leaders did not support the Taliban, Usama bin Laden while also running the ports.

How can you claim that I am bitten by Islamophobia simply because I have seen evidence of your Ruling Leaders being friendly with the man who perpetrated and financed the killing of thousands of innocent people in my country?

Perhaps the rulers of your country should have had a 'Cheney moment' while THEY were out hunting with Usama bin Laden in Afghanistan prior to his murdering of thousands of my countrymen & women?

You might be able to brush aside the A Q Khan activity as having been hidden from their view but, how can you hide the facts that they collectively supported Usama and the taliban prior to the attack on America?

Besides, the above mentioned companies were NOT State-owned companies.

I am sorry but, we in America just don't believe that leopards change their spots.

fayz · Feb 27, 2006

It wasn't anyone in the government or even part of the royal family that was hunting with Osama, just some guy. This is where your cloudy glasses of America are confusing you, You think because a guy wears a white dish dasha he is a royal or a leader? I bet you don't even know why the white house is white.

kanelli · Feb 27, 2006

ROM, It is interesting that you thought only a local Muslim could express the views I expressed. The leader of my country is Stephen Harper (unfortunately) and he certainly wasn't hunting with Osama or any other terrorists

I'm also not Muslim.

Sorry, but I haven't seen any credible evidence to suggest that the rulers of the UAE or the company leaders of DWP have had anything to do with supporting terrorism.

Again, you seem to forget that many of us on this forum are working for multi-national companies who have been welcomed to Dubai by the rulers and business leaders. We are living amongst Muslims and can tell you that this is a moderate country.

If the UAE is crawling with terrorists, why hasn't there been an attack on the huge population of Westerners here yet?

Richard Owl Mirror · Feb 27, 2006

fayz wrote:It wasn't anyone in the government or even part of the royal family that was hunting with Osama, just some guy. This is where your cloudy glasses of America are confusing you, You think because a guy wears a white dish dasha he is a royal or a leader? I bet you don't even know why the white house is white.

Considered an ally now, UAE backed bin Laden
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national ... -8908r.htm

During the Clinton administration, the United States even considered killing bin Laden when he was on a hunting expedition but did not because one of his hunting partners was one of the United Arab Emirates' emirs.
"They have been helpful and supportive and a good partner in the fight against terrorism," said a U.S. counterterrorism official.
It is these two faces of the Arab nation -- a one-time sympathizer of al Qaeda, yet strong post-September 11 U.S. partner -- that Washington is considering in the debate over the Bush administration's proposal to let United Arab Emirates company Dubai Ports World run six large U.S. seaports.
The U.S. September 11 commission's report is replete with accounts of some of the 19 hijackers -- two of whom came from the United Arab Emirates -- using Dubai's permissive banking system and lax passport certification to gain entry into the United States and bankroll a mission that killed more than 3,000 people.
During bin Laden's stay in Afghanistan -- where he built terror training camps, a personal army and a financial network -- some of the United Arab Emirates' upper crust, known as emirs, visited him. The United Arab Emirates was one of only a handful of countries that recognized the harsh Taliban regime, bin Laden's protector.
In 1999, bin Laden spent time in the Afghan desert south of Kandahar near the Sheik Ali hunting camp. It was regularly used by visitors from the United Arab Emirates, according to the September 11 commission report. U.S. intelligence detected an official United Arab Emirates government airplane there on at least one occasion.
"According to reporting from the tribals, bin Laden regularly went from his adjacent camp to the larger camp where he visited the Emiratis," according to the report.
In fact, the presence of the United Arab Emirates rulers at the camp gave the Clinton administration second thoughts about ordering an air strike to kill bin Laden, more than two years before the attack on the United States.
"According to CIA and defense officials, policy-makers were concerned about the danger that a strike would kill an Emirati prince or other senior officials who might be with bin Laden or close by," the commission said. The Clinton administration was so concerned about the emirates' cozy ties to bin Laden that one official called a United Arab Emirates political leader to complain.
Weeks later, the camp was dismantled, and bin Laden disappeared. The implication was clear: Someone in the United Arab Emirates tipped off bin Laden, the United States' most-wanted fugitive, who then was planning the September 11 attacks.

http://www.al-bab.com/arab/background/laden.htm
http://www.al-bab.com/arab/countries/uae.htm

kanelli · Feb 27, 2006

And here is the rest of the article that you left out.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The United Arab Emirates was becoming both a valued counterterrorism ally of the United States and a persistent counterterrorism problem" the commission wrote. It said President Clinton personally pressed United Arab Emirates leaders to break financial and travel ties with the Taliban, but they refused.
Hamdan bin Zayid, United Arab Emirates foreign minister, told a U.S. diplomat that his country maintains relations with the Taliban to counterbalance "Iranian dangers."
Those dangers are one reason that the United Arab Emirates stands as the United States' best military ally in the Gulf, opening key parts of its country for U.S. operations.
Its Mina Jebel Ali port, the largest man-made harbor in the world, hosts more U.S. warships than any other rest stop outside the United States. CIA and FBI agents collect intelligence there on militant Islam. The United Arab Emirates has cooperated with the U.S. Treasury Department in shutting down bank accounts linked to al Qaeda.
"The United Arab Emirates is a country that's been an ally in the global war on terror," Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said on the Michael Reagan radio show this week. "We have a port there where they help us. They have an airfield. We share intelligence, and we have a partnership that has been very, very helpful to the things we do in that part of the world."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lax rules meant that terrorists were able to travel and access money. So what? There are lots of lax rules here, and who would have guessed that money and terrorists from the UAE would have taken part in such an atrocity as the attacks on the Trade Towers and Pentagon? It was a world first. I'd like to remind you that the US was pretty lax when it came to sharing info between the CIA and FBI - resulting in those organisations sitting on their asses while terrorists took flying lessons and continued to exit and enter the States to carry out their evil plan.

The article may not even be correct, but if it is, it clearly mentions the reasons the Emiratis gave for visiting Bin Laden. How do we know what was being discussed? Why would the UAE be so cooperative with the US with anti-terrorism measures if it was secretly bank-rolling terrorism? Also, the article clearly mentions that the UAE has been cooperating in shutting down bank accounts associated with Al Qaeda.

If the UAE were complicit in terrorism and terrorism was rampant here, there would have already been attacks on Westerners, and many companies would have pulled out.

The politics in the Middle East are complicated and leaders of countries are often visiting and socialising with dictators and tyrants in their region. Western government officials also visit dictators and tyrants around the world!

Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

Dubai Controlling US Ports

Go To

Dubai Discussions

Dubai Expat Forums

Dubai Business

Dubai Tech Discussions

Dubai Classifieds